17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 1/19

List of cognitive biasesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 abouthow to classify these biases or how to explain them.[1] Some are effects of information­processing rules (i.e.mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Such effects arecalled cognitive biases.[2][3] Biases have a variety of cognitive ("cold"), such as mental noise,[4] ormotivational ("hot") explanations, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Both effects canbe present at the same time.[5][6]

There are also controversies as to whether some of these biases count as useless, irrational or whether theyresult in useful attitudes or behavior. For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leadingquestions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. This kind ofconfirmation bias has been argued to be an example of social skill: a way to establish a connection with theother person.[7]

The research on these biases overwhelmingly involves human subjects. However, some of the findings haveappeared in non­human animals as well. For example, hyperbolic discounting has also been observed inrats, pigeons, and monkeys.[8]

Contents

1 Decision­making, belief, and behavioral biases2 Social biases3 Memory errors and biases4 Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases5 See also6 Notes7 References

Decision­making, belief, and behavioral biases

Many of these biases affect belief formation, business and economic decisions, and human behavior ingeneral. 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:

Name Description

Ambiguity effect The tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes theprobability seem "unknown".[9]

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 2/19

Anchoring or focalism The tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor", on one trait or piece ofinformation when making decisions (usually the first piece of information thatwe acquire on that subject)[10][11]

Attentional bias The tendency of our perception to be affected by our recurring thoughts.[12]

Automation bias The tendency to excessively depend on automated systems which can lead toerroneous automated information overriding correct decisions.[13]

Availability heuristicThe tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater"availability" in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memoriesare or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.[14]

Availability cascadeA self­reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and moreplausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeatsomething long enough and it will become true").[15]

Backfire effect When people react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening their beliefs.[16]

Bandwagon effect The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (orbelieve) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.[17]

Base rate fallacy or baserate neglect

The tendency to ignore base rate information (generic, general information) andfocus on specific information (information only pertaining to a certain case).[18]

Belief bias An effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument isbiased by the believability of the conclusion.[19]

Bias blind spot The tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able toidentify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.[20]

Cheerleader effect The tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.[21]

Choice­supportive bias The tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.[22]

Clustering illusion The tendency to overestimate the importance of small runs, streaks, or clustersin large samples of random data (that is, seeing phantom patterns).[11]

Confirmation bias The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in away that confirms one's preconceptions.[23]

Congruence bias The tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead oftesting possible alternative hypotheses.[11]

Conjunction fallacy The tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than generalones.[24]

Regressive biasA certain state of mind wherein high values and high likelihoods areoverestimated while low values and low likelihoods are underestimated.[4][25][26]

Conservatism(Bayesian)

The tendency to revise one's belief insufficiently when presented with newevidence.[4][27][28]

Contrast effect The enhancement or reduction of a certain perception's stimuli when comparedwith a recently observed, contrasting object.[29]

When better­informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 3/19

Curse of knowledge from the perspective of lesser­informed people.[30]

Decoy effect Preferences for either option A or B changes in favor of option B when optionC is presented, which is similar to option B but in no way better.

Denomination effect The tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts(e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g. bills).[31]

Disposition Effect The tendency to sell an asset that has accumulated in value and resist selling anasset that has declined in value.

Distinction bias The tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating themsimultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[32]

Dunning­Kruger effect The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their ability and thetendency for experts to underestimate their ability.[33]

Duration neglect The neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its value

Empathy gap The tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in eitheroneself or others.

Endowment effect The fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than theywould be willing to pay to acquire it.[34]

Essentialism Categorizing people and things according to their essential nature, in spite ofvariations.[35]

Exaggeratedexpectation

Based on the estimates, real­world evidence turns out to be less extreme thanour expectations (conditionally inverse of the conservatism bias).[4][36]

Experimenter's orexpectation bias

The tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agreewith their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve,discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear toconflict with those expectations.[37]

Focusing effect The tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event.[38]

Forer effect or Barnumeffect

The observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptionsof their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are infact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effectcan provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefsand practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, graphology, and some types ofpersonality tests.

Framing effect Drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on howthat information is presented.

Frequency illusion

The illusion in which a word, a name or other thing that has recently come toone's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortlyafterwards (not to be confused with the recency illusion or selection bias).[39]

Colloquially, this illusion is known as the Baader­Meinhof Phenomenon.[40]

Functional fixedness Limits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used.

Gambler's fallacy

The tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, whenin reality they are unchanged. Results from an erroneous conceptualization ofthe law of large numbers. For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin fivetimes consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth flip is much

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 4/19

greater than heads."

Hard–easy effect Based on a specific level of task difficulty, the confidence in judgments is tooconservative and not extreme enough[4][41][42][43]

Hindsight bias Sometimes called the "I­knew­it­all­along" effect, the tendency to see pastevents as being predictable[44] at the time those events happened.

Hot­hand fallacyThe "hot­hand fallacy" (also known as the "hot hand phenomenon" or "hothand") is the fallacious belief that a person who has experienced success has agreater chance of further success in additional attempts.

Hyperbolic discounting

Discounting is the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for moreimmediate payoffs relative to later payoffs. Hyperbolic discounting leads tochoices that are inconsistent over time – people make choices today that theirfuture selves would prefer not to have made, despite using the same reasoning.[45] Also known as current moment bias, present­bias, and related to Dynamicinconsistency.

Identifiable victimeffect

The tendency to respond more strongly to a single identified person at risk thanto a large group of people at risk.[46]

IKEA effectThe tendency for people to place a disproportionately high value on objects thatthey partially assembled themselves, such as furniture from IKEA, regardlessof the quality of the end result.

Illusion of control The tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other externalevents.[47]

Illusion of validityBelief that furtherly acquired information generates additional relevant data forpredictions, even when it evidently does not.[48]

Illusory correlation Inaccurately perceiving a relationship between two unrelated events.[49][50]

Impact bias The tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of futurefeeling states.[51]

Information bias The tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.[52]

Insensitivity to samplesize The tendency to under­expect 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 thatthe decision was probably wrong. Also known as the sunk cost fallacy.

Less­is­better effect The tendency to prefer a smaller set to a larger set judged separately, but notjointly

Loss aversion "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated withacquiring it".[53] (see also Sunk cost effects and endowment effect).

Mere exposure effect The tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiaritywith them.[54]

Money illusion The tendency to concentrate on the nominal value (face value) of money ratherthan its value in terms of purchasing power.[55]

The tendency of a track record of non­prejudice to increase subsequent

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 5/19

Moral credential effect prejudice.

Negativity effectThe tendency of people, when evaluating the causes of the behaviors of aperson they dislike, to attribute their positive behaviors to the environment andtheir negative behaviors to the person's inherent nature.

Negativity bias Psychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall ofunpleasant memories compared with positive memories.[56]

Neglect of probability The tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decisionunder uncertainty.[57]

Normalcy bias The refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.

Not invented here Aversion to contact with or use of products, research, standards, or knowledgedeveloped outside a group. Related to IKEA effect.

Observer­expectancyeffect

When a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciouslymanipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see alsosubject­expectancy effect).

Omission bias The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equallyharmful omissions (inactions).[58]

Optimism biasThe tendency to be over­optimistic, overestimating favorable and pleasingoutcomes (see also wishful thinking, valence effect, positive outcome bias).[59][60]

Ostrich effect Ignoring an obvious (negative) situation.

Outcome bias The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based onthe quality of the decision at the time it was made.

Overconfidence effectExcessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, forcertain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out tobe wrong 40% of the time.[4][61][62][63]

PareidoliaA vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) is perceived assignificant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in themoon, and hearing non­existent hidden messages on records played in reverse.

Pessimism bias The tendency for some people, especially those suffering from depression, tooverestimate the likelihood of negative things happening to them.

Planning fallacy The tendency to underestimate task­completion times.[51]

Post­purchaserationalization

The tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchasewas a good value.

Pro­innovation biasThe tendency to have an excessive optimism towards an invention orinnovation's usefulness throughout society, while often failing to identify itslimitations and weaknesses.

Pseudocertainty effect The tendency to make risk­averse choices if the expected outcome is positive,but make risk­seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.[64]

ReactanceThe urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need toresist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice (see also Reversepsychology).

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 6/19

Reactive devaluation Devaluing proposals only because they purportedly originated with anadversary.

Recency illusion The illusion that a word or language usage is a recent innovation when it is infact long­established (see also frequency illusion).

Restraint bias The tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face oftemptation.

Rhyme as reason effectRhyming statements are perceived as more truthful. A famous example beingused in the O.J Simpson trial with the defense's use of the phrase "If the glovesdon't fit, then you must acquit."

Risk compensation /Peltzman effect The tendency to take greater risks when perceived safety increases.

Selective perception The tendency for expectations to affect perception.Semmelweis reflex The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.[28]

Social comparison biasThe tendency, when making hiring decisions, to favour potential candidateswho don't compete with one's own particular strengths.[65]

Social desirability bias The tendency to over­report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours inone self and under­report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviours.[66]

Status quo bias The tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion,endowment effect, and system justification).[67][68]

Stereotyping Expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without havingactual information about that individual.

Subadditivity effect The tendency to judge probability of the whole to be less than the probabilitiesof the parts.[69]

Subjective validation Perception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Alsoassigns perceived connections between coincidences.

Survivorship bias Concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process andinadvertently overlooking those that didn't because of their lack of visibility.

Time­saving bias

Underestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (ordecreasing) from a relatively low speed and overestimations of the time thatcould be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively highspeed.

Unit biasThe tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an item. Strong effectson the consumption of food in particular.[70]

Well travelled roadeffect

Underestimation of the duration taken to traverse oft­traveled routes andoverestimation of the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.

Zero­risk bias Preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a largerrisk.

Zero­sum heuristic

Intuitively judging a situation to be zero­sum (i.e., that gains and losses arecorrelated). Derives from the zero­sum game in game theory, where wins andlosses sum to zero.[71][72] The frequency with which this bias occurs may berelated to the social dominance orientation personality factor.

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 7/19

Social biases

Most of these biases are labeled as attributional biases.

Name Description

Actor–observer bias

The tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviors to overemphasizethe influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of theirsituation (see also Fundamental attribution error), and for explanations of one'sown behaviors to do the opposite (that is, to overemphasize the influence of oursituation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality).

Defensive attributionhypothesis

Attributing more blame to a harm­doer as the outcome becomes more severe oras personal or situational similarity to the victim increases.

Egocentric bias Occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results ofa joint action than an outside observer would credit them with.

Extrinsic incentives biasAn exception to the fundamental attribution error, when people view others ashaving (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsicmotivations for oneself

False consensus effect The tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree withthem.[73]

Forer effect (akaBarnum effect)

The tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personalitythat supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague andgeneral enough to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes.

Fundamentalattribution error

The tendency for people to over­emphasize personality­based explanations forbehaviors observed in others while under­emphasizing the role and power ofsituational influences on the same behavior (see also actor­observer bias, groupattribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[74]

Group attribution error

The biased belief that the characteristics of an individual group member arereflective of the group as a whole or the tendency to assume that group decisionoutcomes reflect the preferences of group members, even when information isavailable that clearly suggests otherwise.

Halo effectThe tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from onepersonality area to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physicalattractiveness stereotype).[75]

Illusion of asymmetricinsight

People perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers'knowledge of them.[76]

Illusion of externalagency

When people view self­generated preferences as instead being caused byinsightful, effective and benevolent agents

Illusion of transparency People overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimatetheir ability to know others.

Illusory superiorityOverestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirablequalities, relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect","better­than­average effect", or "superiority bias".)[77]

Ingroup bias The tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 8/19

be members of their own groups.

Just­world hypothesisThe tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just,causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved bythe victim(s).

Moral luck The tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on theoutcome of an event

Naïve cynicism Expecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself

Naïve realismThe belief that we see reality as it really is – objectively and without bias; thatthe facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and thatthose who don't are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.

Outgroup homogeneitybias

Individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more variedthan members of other groups.[78]

Projection bias The tendency to unconsciously assume that others (or one's future selves) shareone's current emotional states, thoughts and values.[79]

Self­serving biasThe tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It mayalso manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous informationin a way beneficial to their interests (see also group­serving bias).[80]

Shared informationbias

Known as the tendency for group members to spend more time and energydiscussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., sharedinformation), and less time and energy discussing information that only somemembers are aware of (i.e., unshared information).[81]

System justification

The tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic,and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparagedsometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self­interest. (Seealso status quo bias.)

Trait ascription biasThe tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms ofpersonality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much morepredictable.

Ultimate attributionerror

Similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely tomake an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals withinthe group.

Worse­than­averageeffect

A tendency to believe ourselves to be worse than others at tasks which aredifficult[82]

Memory errors and biases

Main article: List of memory biases

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

Name Description

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 9/19

Bizarreness effect Bizarre material is better remembered than common material.

Choice­supportive bias In a self­justifying manner retroactively ascribing one's choices to be moreinformed than they were when they were made.

Change bias After an investment of effort in producing change, remembering one's pastperformance as more difficult than it actually was[83]

Childhood amnesia The retention of few memories from before the age of four.

Conservatism orRegressive bias

Tendency to remember high values and highlikelihoods/probabilities/frequencies as lower than they actually were and lowones as higher than they actually were. Based on the evidence, memories arenot extreme enough[25][26]

Consistency bias Incorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as resemblingpresent attitudes and behaviour.[84]

Context effect

That cognition and memory are dependent on context, such that out­of­contextmemories are more difficult to retrieve than in­context memories (e.g., recalltime and accuracy for a work­related memory will be lower at home, and viceversa)

Cross­race effect The tendency for people of one race to have difficulty identifying members of arace other than their own.

CryptomnesiaA form of misattribution where a memory is mistaken for imagination, becausethere is no subjective experience of it being a memory.[83]

Egocentric biasRecalling the past in a self­serving manner, e.g., remembering one's examgrades as being better than they were, or remembering a caught fish as biggerthan it really was.

Fading affect bias A bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades morequickly than the emotion associated with positive events.[85]

False memory A form of misattribution where imagination is mistaken for a memory.

Generation effect (Self­generation effect)

That self­generated information is remembered best. For instance, people arebetter able to recall memories of statements that they have generated thansimilar statements generated by others.

Google effect The tendency to forget information that can be found readily online by usingInternet search engines.

Hindsight bias The inclination to see past events as being more predictable than they actuallywere; also called the "I­knew­it­all­along" effect.

Humor effect

That humorous items are more easily remembered than non­humorous ones,which might be explained by the distinctiveness of humor, the increasedcognitive processing time to understand the humor, or the emotional arousalcaused by the humor.[86]

Illusion of truth effect

That people are more likely to identify as true statements those they havepreviously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heardthem), regardless of the actual validity of the statement. In other words, aperson is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one.

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 10/19

Illusory correlation Inaccurately remembering a relationship between two events.[4][50]

Lag effect See spacing effect.

Leveling andSharpening

Memory distortions introduced by the loss of details in a recollection over time,often concurrent with sharpening or selective recollection of certain details thattake on exaggerated significance in relation to the details or aspects of theexperience lost through leveling. Both biases may be reinforced over time, andby repeated recollection or re­telling of a memory.[87]

Levels­of­processingeffect

That different methods of encoding information into memory have differentlevels of effectiveness.[88]

List­length effectA smaller percentage of items are remembered in a longer list, but as the lengthof the list increases, the absolute number of items remembered increases aswell.[89]

Misinformation effect Memory becoming less accurate because of interference from post­eventinformation.[90]

Modality effect That memory recall is higher for the last items of a list when the list items werereceived via speech than when they were received through writing.

Mood­congruentmemory bias The improved recall of information congruent with one's current mood.

Next­in­line effect That a person in a group has diminished recall for the words of others whospoke immediately before himself, if they take turns speaking.[91]

Part­list cueing effect That being shown some items from a list and later retrieving one item causes itto become harder to retrieve the other items[92]

Peak–end rule That people seem to perceive not the sum of an experience but the average ofhow it was at its peak (e.g. pleasant or unpleasant) and how it ended.

Persistence The unwanted recurrence of memories of a traumatic event.

Picture superiorityeffect

The notion that concepts that are learned by viewing pictures are more easilyand frequently recalled than are concepts that are learned by viewing theirwritten word form counterparts.[93][94][95][96][97][98]

Positivity effect That older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.Primacy effect, Recencyeffect & Serial positioneffect

That items near the end of a sequence are the easiest to recall, followed by theitems at the beginning of a sequence; items in the middle are the least likely tobe remembered.[99]

Processing difficultyeffect

That information that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processedwith more difficulty) is more easily remembered.[100]

Reminiscence bumpThe recalling of more personal events from adolescence and early adulthoodthan personal events from other lifetime periods[101]

Rosy retrospection The remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.

Self­relevance effect That memories relating to the self are better recalled than similar informationrelating to others.

Source confusion Confusing episodic memories with other information, creating distorted

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 11/19

memories.[102]

Spacing effect That information is better recalled if exposure to it is repeated over a long spanof time rather than a short one.

Spotlight effect The tendency to overestimate the amount that other people notice yourappearance or behavior.

Stereotypical bias Memory distorted towards stereotypes (e.g., racial or gender), e.g., "black­sounding" names being misremembered as names of criminals.[83]

Suffix effect Diminishment of the recency effect because a sound item is appended to the listthat the subject is not required to recall.[103][104]

Suggestibility A form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistakenfor memory.

Telescoping effectThe tendency to displace recent events backward in time and remote eventsforward in time, so that recent events appear more remote, and remote events,more recent.

Testing effect The fact that you more easily remember information you have read by rewritingit instead of rereading it.[105]

Tip of the tonguephenomenon

When a subject is able to recall parts of an item, or related information, but isfrustratingly unable to recall the whole item. This is thought an instance of"blocking" where multiple similar memories are being recalled and interferewith each other.[83]

Verbatim effectThat the "gist" of what someone has said is better remembered than theverbatim wording.[106] This is because memories are representations, not exactcopies.

Von Restorff effect That an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered than other items[107]

Zeigarnik effect That uncompleted or interrupted tasks are remembered better than completedones.

Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases

Bounded rationality – limits on optimization and rationalityProspect theoryMental accountingAdaptive bias – basing decisions on limited information and biasing them based on the costsof being wrong.

Attribute substitution – making a complex, difficult judgment by unconsciously substituting it byan easier judgment[108]Attribution theory

SalienceNaïve realism

Cognitive dissonance, and related:Impression managementSelf­perception theory

Heuristics in judgment and decision making, including:

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 12/19

Availability heuristic – estimating what is more likely by what is more available in memory,which is biased toward vivid, unusual, or emotionally charged examples[49]

Representativeness heuristic – judging probabilities on the basis of resemblance[49]Affect heuristic – basing a decision on an emotional reaction rather than a calculation of risksand benefits[109]

Some theories of emotion such as:Two­factor theory of emotionSomatic markers hypothesis

Introspection illusionMisinterpretations or misuse of statistics; innumeracy.

A 2012 Psychological Bulletin article suggested that at least eight seemingly unrelated biases can beproduced by the same information­theoretic generative mechanism that assumes noisy informationprocessing during storage and retrieval of information in human memory.[4]

See also

Notes

Affective forecastingApopheniaBlack swan theoryChronostasisCognitive bias mitigationCognitive distortionConfabulationCross­race effectDysrationaliaFrame rateList of common misconceptionsList of fallaciesList of memory biasesLists of thinking­related topicsList of topics related to public relations and propagandaLogical fallacyMedia biasMind projection fallacyPareidoliaPublication biasRecall biasRaster scanSaccadeSaccadic maskingSaccadic suppression of image displacementSelf­handicappingSystematic biasTranssaccadic memory

1. Dougherty, M. R. P.; Gettys, C. F.; Ogden, E. E. (1999). "MINERVA­DM: A memory processes model forjudgments of likelihood"

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 13/19

judgments of likelihood"(http://www.bsos.umd.edu/psyc/dougherty/PDF%20articles/Dougherty,Gettys&Ogden,1999.pdf) (PDF).Psychological Review 106 (1): 180–209. doi:10.1037/0033­295x.106.1.180 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0033­295x.106.1.180).

2. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. (1972). "Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness". CognitivePsychology 3: 430–454. doi:10.1016/0010­0285(72)90016­3 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0010­0285%2872%2990016­3).

3. Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). New York City: Cambridge University Press.ISBN 9781139466028.

4. Martin Hilbert (2012) ""Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can biashuman decision making" (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011­27261­001)". Psychological Bulletin, 138(2),211–237; Also at http://www.martinhilbert.net/HilbertPsychBull.pdf

5. Maccoun, Robert J. (1998). "Biases in the interpretation and use of research results"(http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/MacCoun_AnnualReview98.pdf) (PDF). Annual Review of Psychology 49(1): 259–87. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.49.1.259).PMID 15012470 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15012470).

6. Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998). "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises"(http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf) (PDF). Review of General Psychology(Educational Publishing Foundation) 2 (2): 175–220 [198]. doi:10.1037/1089­2680.2.2.175(https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F1089­2680.2.2.175). ISSN 1089­2680 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1089­2680).

7. Dardenne, Benoit; Leyens, Jacques­Philippe (1995). "Confirmation Bias as a Social Skill". Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin (Society for Personality and Social Psychology) 21 (11): 1229–1239.doi:10.1177/01461672952111011 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F01461672952111011). ISSN 1552­7433(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1552­7433).

8. Alexander, William H.; Brown, Joshua W. (1 June 2010). "Hyperbolically Discounted Temporal DifferenceLearning" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005720/). Neural Computation 22 (6): 1511–1527.doi:10.1162/neco.2010.08­09­1080 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1162%2Fneco.2010.08­09­1080). PMC 3005720(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005720). PMID 20100071(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20100071).

9. Baron 1994, p. 37210. Zhang, Yu; Lewis, Mark; Pellon, Michael; Coleman, Phillip (2007). "A Preliminary Research on Modeling

Cognitive Agents for Social Environments in Multi­Agent Systems"(http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/2007/FS­07­04/FS07­04­017.pdf) (PDF). pp. 116–123.

11. Iverson, Grant; Brooks, Brian; Holdnack, James (2008). "Misdiagnosis of Cognitive Impairment in ForensicNeuropsychology". In Heilbronner, Robert L. Neuropsychology in the Courtroom: Expert Analysis of Reportsand Testimony. New York: Guilford Press. p. 248. ISBN 9781593856342.

12. Bar­Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans­Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (2007). Threat­related attentional bias in anxious and non­anxious individuals: A meta­analytic study. Psychological Bulletin.

13. Goddard, Kate; Roudsari, Abdul; Wyatt, Jeremy C. (2011). "Automation Bias – A Hidden Issue for ClinicalDecision Support System Use (https://books.google.com/books?id=NsbaN_fXRe4C&pg=PA17)." InternationalPerspectives in Health Informatics. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. IOS Press. doi:10.3233/978­1­60750­709­3­17 (https://dx.doi.org/10.3233%2F978­1­60750­709­3­17)

14. Schwarz, N.; Bless, Herbert; Strack, Fritz; Klumpp, G.; Rittenauer­Schatka, Helga; Simons, Annette (1991)."Ease of Retrieval as Information: Another Look at the Availability Heuristic"(http://osil.psy.ua.edu:16080/~Rosanna/Soc_Inf/week4/availability.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 61 (2): 195–202. doi:10.1037/0022­3514.61.2.195 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022­3514.61.2.195). Retrieved 19 Oct 2014.

15. Kuran, Timur; Cass R Sunstein (1998). "Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation". Stanford Law Review 51:683. doi:10.2307/1229439 (https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F1229439).

16. Sanna, Lawrence J.; Schwarz, Norbert; Stocker, Shevaun L. (2002). "When debiasing backfires: Accessiblecontent and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight."(http://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/acc_invest_march2010/speakers/4DebiasBackfires.pdf) (PDF). Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28 (3): 497–502. doi:10.1037/0278­7393.28.3.497(https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0278­7393.28.3.497). ISSN 0278­7393 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0278­

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 14/19

(https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0278­7393.28.3.497). ISSN 0278­7393 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0278­7393).

17. Colman, Andrew (2003). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 0­19­280632­7.

18. Baron 1994, pp. 224–22819. Klauer, K. C.; Musch, J; Naumer, B (2000). "On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning". Psychological Review 107

(4): 852–884. doi:10.1037/0033­295X.107.4.852 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0033­295X.107.4.852).PMID 11089409 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11089409).

20. Pronin, Emily; Matthew B. Kugler (July 2007). "Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusionas 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 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jesp.2006.05.011). ISSN 0022­1031(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022­1031).

21. Walker, Drew; Vul, Edward (2013­10­25). "Hierarchical Encoding Makes Individuals in a Group Seem MoreAttractive" (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/25/0956797613497969). Psychological Science 20 (11):230–235. doi:10.1177/0956797613497969 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797613497969).

22. Mather, M.; Shafir, E.; Johnson, M.K. (2000). "Misrememberance of options past: Source monitoring andchoice" (http://www.usc.edu/projects/matherlab/pdfs/Matheretal2000.pdf) (PDF). Psychological Science 11 (2):132–138. doi:10.1111/1467­9280.00228 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2F1467­9280.00228). PMID 11273420(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11273420).

23. Oswald, Margit E.; Grosjean, Stefan (2004). "Confirmation Bias". In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: AHandbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 79–96. ISBN 978­1­84169­351­4. OCLC 55124398 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398).

24. Fisk, John E. (2004). "Conjunction fallacy". In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallaciesand Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 23–42. ISBN 978­1­84169­351­4. OCLC 55124398 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398).

25. Attneave, F. (1953). "Psychological probability as a function of experienced frequency". Journal of ExperimentalPsychology 46 (2): 81–86. doi:10.1037/h0057955 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0057955). PMID 13084849(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13084849).

26. Fischhoff, B.; Slovic, P.; Lichtenstein, S. (1977). "Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extremeconfidence". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3 (4): 552–564.doi:10.1037/0096­1523.3.4.552 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0096­1523.3.4.552).

27. DuCharme, W. M. (1970). "Response bias explanation of conservative human inference". Journal ofExperimental Psychology 85 (1): 66–74. doi:10.1037/h0029546 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0029546).

28. Edwards, W. (1968). "Conservatism in human information processing". In Kleinmuntz, B. Formalrepresentation of human judgment. New York: Wiley. pp. 17–52.

29. Plous 1993, pp. 38–4130. Ackerman, Mark S., ed. (2003). Sharing expertise beyond knowledge management (online ed.). Cambridge,

Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 9780262011952.31. Why We Spend Coins Faster Than Bills (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104063298) by

Chana Joffe­Walt. All Things Considered, 12 May 2009.32. 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:10.1037/0022­3514.86.5.680(https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022­3514.86.5.680). PMID 15161394(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15161394).

33. Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One'sOwn Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self­Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6):1121–34. doi:10.1037/0022­3514.77.6.1121 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022­3514.77.6.1121).PMID 10626367 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367). CiteSeerX: 10.1.1.64.2655(http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.64.2655).

34. (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Richard Thaler coined the term "endowment effect."35. Maria Trochatos reviews The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought by Susan A. Gelman

(http://www.human­nature.com/nibbs/04/gelman.html)36. 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:10.1016/0749­5978(85)90008­1 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0749­5978%2885%2990008­1).

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 15/19

406–416. doi:10.1016/0749­5978(85)90008­1 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0749­5978%2885%2990008­1).37. Jeng, M. (2006). "A selected history of expectation bias in physics". American Journal of Physics 74 (7): 578–

583. doi:10.1119/1.2186333 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1119%2F1.2186333).38. Kahneman, Daniel; Alan B. Krueger; David Schkade; Norbert Schwarz; Arthur A. Stone (2006­06­30). "Would

you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion"(http://www.morgenkommichspaeterrein.de/ressources/download/125krueger.pdf) (PDF). Science 312 (5782):1908–10. doi:10.1126/science.1129688 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1129688). PMID 16809528(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16809528).

39. Zwicky, Arnold (2005­08­07). "Just Between Dr. Language and I"(http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002386.html). Language Log.

40. "There's a Name for That: The Baader­Meinhof Phenomenon" (http://www.psmag.com/culture/theres­a­name­for­that­the­baader­meinhof­phenomenon­59670/). psmag.com. Pacific Standard. 22 July 2013. Retrieved 3 May2015.

41. 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:10.1016/0030­5073(77)90001­0(https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0030­5073%2877%2990001­0)

42. Merkle, E. C. (2009). "The disutility of the hard­easy effect in choice confidence". Psychonomic Bulletin &Review 16 (1): 204–213. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.204 (https://dx.doi.org/10.3758%2FPBR.16.1.204).

43. Juslin, P; Winman, A.; Olsson, H. (2000). "Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: a criticalexamination of the hard­easy effect". Psychological Review 107 (2): 384–396. doi:10.1037/0033­295x.107.2.384(https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0033­295x.107.2.384).

44. Pohl, Rüdiger F. (2004). "Hindsight Bias". In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallaciesand Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 363–378. ISBN 978­1­84169­351­4. OCLC 55124398 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398).

45. Laibson, David (1997). "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting". Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (2):443–477. doi:10.1162/003355397555253 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1162%2F003355397555253).

46. Kogut, Tehila; Ritov, Ilana (2005). "The 'Identified Victim' Effect: An Identified Group, or Just a SingleIndividual?" (http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msiritov/KogutRitovIdentified.pdf) (PDF). Journal of BehavioralDecision Making (Wiley InterScience) 18: 157–167. doi:10.1002/bdm.492(https://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fbdm.492). Retrieved August 15, 2013.

47. Thompson, Suzanne C. (1999). "Illusions of Control: How We Overestimate Our Personal Influence". CurrentDirections in Psychological Science (Association for Psychological Science) 8 (6): 187–190. doi:10.1111/1467­8721.00044 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2F1467­8721.00044). ISSN 0963­7214(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0963­7214). JSTOR 20182602 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182602).

48. Dierkes, Meinolf; Antal, Ariane Berthoin; Child, John; Ikujiro Nonaka (2003). Handbook of OrganizationalLearning and Knowledge (https://books.google.com/books?id=JRd7RZzzw_wC&pg=PA22). Oxford UniversityPress. p. 22. ISBN 978­0­19­829582­2. Retrieved 9 September 2013.

49. 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 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.185.4157.1124). PMID 17835457(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17835457).

50. Fiedler, K. (1991). "The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account ofdistinctiveness­based illusory correlations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (1): 24–36.doi:10.1037/0022­3514.60.1.24 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022­3514.60.1.24).

51. Sanna, Lawrence J.; Schwarz, Norbert (2004). "Integrating Temporal Biases: The Interplay of Focal Thoughtsand Accessibility Experiences". Psychological Science (American Psychological Society) 15 (7): 474–481.doi:10.1111/j.0956­7976.2004.00704.x (https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0956­7976.2004.00704.x).PMID 15200632 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15200632).

52. Baron 1994, pp. 258–25953. (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Daniel Kahneman, together with Amos Tversky, coined the term

"loss aversion."54. Bornstein, Robert F.; Crave­Lemley, Catherine (2004). "Mere exposure effect". In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive

Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: PsychologyPress. pp. 215–234. ISBN 978­1­84169­351­4. OCLC 55124398 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398).

55. Shafir, Eldar; Diamond, Peter; Tversky, Amos (2000). "Money Illusion". In Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos.

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 16/19

55. 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 978­0­521­62749­8.

56. Haizlip, Julie et al. "Perspective: The Negativity Bias, Medical Education, and the Culture of AcademicMedicine: Why Culture Change Is Hard"(http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2012/09000/Perspective___The_Negativity_Bias,_Medical.19.aspx). Retrieved October 3, 2012.

57. Baron 1994, p. 35358. Baron 1994, p. 38659. Baron 1994, p. 4460. Hardman 2009, p. 10461. 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. Hoffrage, Ulrich (2004). "Overconfidence". In Rüdiger Pohl. Cognitive Illusions: a handbook on fallacies and

biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Psychology Press. ISBN 978­1­84169­351­4.63. Sutherland 2007, pp. 172–17864. Hardman 2009, p. 13765. 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 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2010.06.002). ISSN 0749­5978(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0749­5978). Lay summary (http://bps­research­digest.blogspot.com/2010/10/social­comparison­bias­or­why­we.html) – BPS Research Digest (2010­10­30).

66. Dalton, D. & Ortegren, M. (2011). "Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for thesocial desirability response bias". Journal of Business Ethics 103 (1): 73–93. doi:10.1007/s10551­011­0843­8(https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10551­011­0843­8).

67. Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 19368. Baron 1994, p. 38269. Baron, J. (in preparation). Thinking and Deciding, 4th edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.70. "Penn Psychologists Believe 'Unit Bias' Determines The Acceptable Amount To Eat"

(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051121163748.htm). ScienceDaily (Nov. 21, 2005)71. Meegan, Daniel V. (2010). "Zero­Sum Bias: Perceived Competition Despite Unlimited Resources". Frontiers in

Psychology 1. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191 (https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2010.00191). ISSN 1664­1078 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1664­1078).

72. Chernev, Alexander (2007). "Jack of All Trades or Master of One? Product Differentiation and CompensatoryReasoning in Consumer Choice". Journal of Consumer Research 33 (4): 430–444. doi:10.1086/510217(https://dx.doi.org/10.1086%2F510217). ISSN 0093­5301 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0093­5301).

73. Marks, Gary; Miller, Norman (1987). "Ten years of research on the false­consensus effect: An empirical andtheoretical review". Psychological Bulletin (American Psychological Association) 102 (1): 72–90.doi:10.1037/0033­2909.102.1.72 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0033­2909.102.1.72).

74. Sutherland 2007, pp. 138–13975. Baron 1994, p. 27576. 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:10.1037/0022­3514.81.4.639 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022­3514.81.4.639). PMID 11642351(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11642351).

77. Hoorens, Vera (1993). "Self­enhancement and Superiority Biases in Social Comparison". European Review ofSocial Psychology (Psychology Press) 4 (1): 113–139. doi:10.1080/14792779343000040(https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F14792779343000040).

78. Plous 2006, p. 20679. 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(https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tics.2005.11.007). PMID 16318925(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16318925).

80. Plous 2006, p. 18581. Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.82. Kruger, J. (1999). "Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below­average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 17/19

82. Kruger, J. (1999). "Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below­average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparativeability judgments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (2): 221–32. doi:10.1037/0022­3514.77.2.221 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022­3514.77.2.221). PMID 10474208(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10474208).

83. Schacter, Daniel L. (1999). "The Seven Sins of Memory: Insights From Psychology and CognitiveNeuroscience". American Psychologist 54 (3): 182–203. doi:10.1037/0003­066X.54.3.182(https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0003­066X.54.3.182). PMID 10199218(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10199218).

84. Cacioppo, John (2002). Foundations in social neuroscience. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp. 130–132.ISBN 026253195X.

85. Walker, W. Richard; John J. Skowronski; Charles P. Thompson (1994). "Effects of Humor on SentenceMemory"(http://facstaff.uww.edu/eamond/road/Research/GenderJokes%28DK1%29/References%20and%20info/Effects%20of%20Humor%20on%20Sentence%20Memory.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition (American Psychological Association, Inc.) 20 (4): 953–967. Retrieved 2015­04­19.

86. Schmidt, Stephen R. (2003). "Life Is Pleasant—and Memory Helps to Keep It That Way!"(http://www.niu.edu/jskowronski/publications/WalkerSkowronskiThompson2003.pdf) (PDF). Review of GeneralPsychology (Educational Publishing Foundation) 7 (2): 203–210.

87. Koriat, A.; M. Goldsmith; A. Pansky (2000). "Toward a Psychology of Memory Accuracy". Annual Review ofPsychology 51 (1): 481–537. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481(https://dx.doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.51.1.481). PMID 10751979(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10751979).

88. Craik & Lockhart, 197289. 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/s13421­010­0007­6 (https://dx.doi.org/10.3758%2Fs13421­010­0007­6).

90. Wayne Weiten (2010). Psychology: Themes and Variations: Themes and Variations(https://books.google.com/books?id=sILajOhJpOsC&pg=PA338). Cengage Learning. p. 338. ISBN 978­0­495­60197­5.

91. Wayne Weiten (2007). Psychology: Themes and Variations: Themes And Variations(https://books.google.com/books?id=Vv1vvlIEXG0C&pg=PA260). Cengage Learning. p. 260. ISBN 978­0­495­09303­9.

92. Slamecka NJ (1968). "An examination of trace storage in free recall". J Exp Psychol 76 (4): 504–13.doi:10.1037/h0025695 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0025695). PMID 5650563(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5650563).

93. Shepard, R.N. (1967). "Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures". Journal of Learning andVerbal Behavior 6: 156–163. doi:10.1016/s0022­5371(67)80067­7 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0022­5371%2867%2980067­7).

94. McBride, D. M.; Dosher, B.A. (2002). "A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for pictureand word stimuli: a process dissociation analysis". Consciousness and Cognition 11: 423–460.doi:10.1016/s1053­8100(02)00007­7 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fs1053­8100%2802%2900007­7).

95. Defetyer, M. A.; Russo, R.; McPartlin, P. L. (2009). "The picture superiority effect in recognition memory: adevelopmental study using the response signal procedure". Cognitive Development 24: 265–273.doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.05.002 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cogdev.2009.05.002).

96. Whitehouse, A. J.; Maybery, M.T.; Durkin, K. (2006). "The development of the picture­superiority effect".British Journal of Developmental Psychology 24: 767–773. doi:10.1348/026151005X74153(https://dx.doi.org/10.1348%2F026151005X74153).

97. Ally, B. A.; Gold, C. A.; Budson, A. E. (2009). "The picture superiority effect in patients with Alzheimer'sdisease and mild cognitive impairment". Neuropsychologia 47: 595–598.doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.010 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.neuropsychologia.2008.10.010).

98. Curran, T.; Doyle, J. (2011). "Picture superiority doubly dissociates the ERP correlates of recollection andfamiliarity". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23 (5): 1247–1262. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21464(https://dx.doi.org/10.1162%2Fjocn.2010.21464).

99. Martin, G. Neil; Neil R. Carlson; William Buskist (2007). Psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. pp. 309–310. ISBN 978­0­273­71086­8.

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 18/19

References

Baron, Jonathan (1994). Thinking and deciding (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0­521­43732­6.Baron, Jonathan (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.ISBN 0­521­65030­5.Bishop, Michael A.; Trout, J. D. (2004). Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. NewYork: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0­19­516229­3.Gilovich, Thomas (1993). "How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason inEveryday Life". New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0­02­911706­2.Gilovich, Thomas; Griffin, Dale; Kahneman, Daniel (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychologyof intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0­521­79679­2.Greenwald, A. (1980). "The Totalitarian Ego: Fabrication and Revision of Personal History"(http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Gwald_AmPsychologist_1980.OCR.pdf) (PDF). AmericanPsychologist (American Psychological Association) 35 (7). ISSN 0003­066X(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0003­066X).Hardman, David (2009). Judgment and decision making: psychological perspectives. Wiley­Blackwell. ISBN 978­1­4051­2398­3.Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; Tversky, Amos (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristicsand Biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0­521­28414­7.Kahneman, Daniel; Knetsch, Jack L.; Thaler, Richard H. (1991). "Anomalies: The EndowmentEffect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias"(http://users.tricity.wsu.edu/~achaudh/kahnemanetal.pdf) (PDF). The Journal of EconomicPerspectives (American Economic Association) 5 (1): 193–206. doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193(https://dx.doi.org/10.1257%2Fjep.5.1.193).Plous, Scott (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw­Hill.

310. ISBN 978­0­273­71086­8.100. "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:10.1037/0278­7393.11.1.12 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0278­7393.11.1.12)

101. Rubin, Wetzler & Nebes, 1986; Rubin, Rahhal & Poon, 1998102. David A. Lieberman (8 December 2011). Human Learning and Memory (https://books.google.com/books?

id=mJsV­Vr8Q6sC&pg=PA432). Cambridge University Press. p. 432. ISBN 978­1­139­50253­5.103. Morton, Crowder & Prussin, 1971104. Ian Pitt; Alistair D. N. Edwards (2003). Design of Speech­Based Devices: A Practical Guide

(https://books.google.com/books?id=zQ10cPSz1lMC&pg=PA26). Springer. p. 26. ISBN 978­1­85233­436­9.105. E. Bruce Goldstein. Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience

(https://books.google.com/books?id=9TUIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA231). Cengage Learning. p. 231. ISBN 978­1­133­00912­2.

106. Poppenk, Walia, Joanisse, Danckert, & Köhler, 2006107. 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(https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf02409636).

108. Kahneman, Daniel; Shane Frederick (2002). "Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in IntuitiveJudgment". In Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology ofIntuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 49–81. ISBN 978­0­521­79679­8.OCLC 47364085 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47364085).

109. Slovic, Paul; Melissa Finucane; Ellen Peters; Donald G. MacGregor (2002). "The Affect Heuristic". In ThomasGilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment.Cambridge University Press. pp. 397–420. ISBN 0­521­79679­2.

17/08/2015 List of cognitive biases ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 19/19

ISBN 0­07­050477­6.Schacter, Daniel L. (1999). "The Seven Sins of Memory: Insights From Psychology and CognitiveNeuroscience" (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~scanlab/papers/2003_Schacter_SevenSinsSelf.pdf)(PDF). American Psychologist (American Psychological Association) 54 (3): 182–203.doi:10.1037/0003­066X.54.3.182 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0003­066X.54.3.182). ISSN 0003­066X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0003­066X). PMID 10199218(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10199218).Sutherland, Stuart (2007). Irrationality. Pinter & Martin. ISBN 978­1­905177­07­3.Tetlock, Philip E. (2005). Expert Political Judgment: how good is it? how can we know?. Princeton:Princeton University Press. ISBN 978­0­691­12302­8.Virine, L.; Trumper, M. (2007). Project Decisions: The Art and Science. Vienna, VA: ManagementConcepts. ISBN 978­1­56726­217­9.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cognitive_biases&oldid=676181878"

Categories: Cognitive biases Psychology lists Behavioral finance Critical thinkingCognitive science lists

This page was last modified on 15 August 2015, at 07:23.Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution­ShareAlike License; additional terms mayapply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is aregistered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non­profit organization.