Cognitive or Inventive Bias _ Part 2
Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often influencing decision-making processes. They are tendencies or patterns of thought that consistently and predictably deviate from objective standards such as facts or rational choices. These biases can affect perceptions, interpretations, and decisions. There are numerous cognitive biases, and they have been extensively studied by researchers in psychology, behavioral economics, and related fields. The concept of cognitive biases gained prominence through the work of psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Their research, particularly in prospect theory, highlighted various systematic errors in human judgment and decision-making. Beginning in the 1970s, Tversky and Kahneman conducted studies that challenged traditional economic models by revealing patterns of irrationality in how individuals assess risks, make choices, and form judgments. Prospect theory, introduced by Tversky and Kahneman in 1979, revolutionized the understanding of decision-making under uncertainty. It demonstrated that people do not always make decisions based on rational assessments of expected value but are influenced by cognitive biases that deviate from classical economic assumptions. The theory highlighted phenomena such as loss aversion, framing effects, and the endowment effect, shedding light on how individuals deviate from rational decision-making in predictable ways. Their research laid the foundation for the field of behavioral economics, which integrates insights from psychology into economic theories. Tversky and Kahneman’s work earned them the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002, recognizing the transformative impact of their contributions on our understanding of human decision-making and the pervasive influence of cognitive biases in various aspects of life. Research on cognitive biases is carried out through empirical studies, experiments, and observations. Psychologists and behavioral economists design experiments to identify and understand how cognitive biases operate in different contexts. These studies often involve presenting participants with scenarios, decision-making tasks, or i nformation to observe how biases influence their judgments and choices. Cognitive biases are not limited to academic research; they have practical implications in fields like marketing, finance, law, and various aspects of everyday life. Understanding these biases can help individuals make more informed decisions and professionals design better systems, policies, and interventions. Researchers continue to explore new biases and refine their understanding of existing ones to contribute to the broader field of behavioral science. Inventive (Cognitive) Biases 106 Overconfidence effect 107 Social desirability bias 108 Third–person effect 109 False consensus effect 110 Hard–easy effect 111 Lake Wobegone effect 112 Dunning–Kruger effect 113 Egocentric bias 114 Optimism bias 115 Forer effect 116 Barnum effect 117 Self–serving bias 118 Actor–observer bias 119 Illusion of control 120 Illusory superiority 121 Fundamental attribution error 122 Defensive attribution hypothesis 123 Trait ascription bias 124 Effort justification 125 Risk compensation 126 Peltzman effect Overconfidence Effect The tendency to overestimate one’s own abilities or the accuracy of one’s beliefs and predictions. : The inclination to respond in a way that is socially acceptable or perceived favorably by others, rather than providing honest or accurate information. Third–Person Effect: The belief that others are more influenced by media messages than oneself, underestimating one’s susceptibility to media influence. False Consensus Effect: The tendency to overestimate the extent to which others share one’s beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. Hard–Easy Effect: The phenomenon where people tend to overestimate their performance in easy tasks and underestimate their performance in difficult tasks. Lake Wobegon Effect: The tendency to overestimate one’s abilities or characteristics in comparison to others – a belief that one is above average. Dunning–Kruger Effect: The cognitive bias where individuals with low ability at a task overestimate their ability, while those with high ability underestimate their own competence. Egocentric Bias: The inclination to rely too heavily on one’s own perspective and underestimate the impact of other people’s viewpoints. Optimism Bias: The tendency to underestimate the likelihood of negative events happening to oneself and overestimate the likelihood of positive events. Forer Effect: The tendency to accept vague and general personality descriptions as personally accurate, such as those often found in horoscopes or personality assessments. Barnum Effect: The tendency to accept vague statements and generalizations about oneself as accurate, also known as the “personal validation fallacy.” Self–Serving Bias: The tendency to attribute positive events to one’s own character and abilities, but attribute negative events to external factors. Actor–Observer Bias: The tendency to attribute one’s own behavior to external factors while attributing others’ behavior to internal factors. Illusion of Control: The belief that one has more control over events than is actually the case. Illusory Superiority: The tendency for individuals to overestimate their own qualities and abilities in relation to others, often referred to as the “above-average effect.” Fundamental Attribution Error: The inclination to attribute others’ actions to their character while attributing one’s own actions to external factors. Defensive Attribution Hypothesis: The tendency to blame victims for their misfortune as a way to feel safer or more secure in one’s own world. Trait Ascription Bias: The tendency to attribute personality traits to others based on their behavior, while ignoring situational factors. Effort Justification: The tendency to attribute a greater value to an outcome that required significant effort or sacrifice. Risk Compensation: The phenomenon where individuals adjust their behavior in response to perceived changes in risk, potentially leading to a nullification of safety measures. Peltzman Effect: The idea that people may adjust their behavior in response to perceived safety measures, potentially leading to an increase in risky behavior Availability Bias Anchoring Bias Egocentric or Egocentricity Bias, Overconfidence Effect Halo Effect, Halo Error, Association Fallacy Recency Effect Bias Framing Effect Bias Sunk Cost Fallacy Hindsight, “I-Knew-It-All” Bias Loss Aversion Bias Gambler’s Fallacy Self-serving or Attribution Bias, Fundamental Attribution Error Dunning-Kruger Effect Social Desirability Bias Illusory Correlation or Apophenia Bias Mere-Exposure Effect , Familiarity Principle Conformity Bias, Groupthink or Bandwagon Negativity Bias Algorithmic Bias References “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman: This book by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman explores the two systems that drive the way we think—System 1, which is fast and intuitive, and System 2, which is slow and deliberate. “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Ariely: Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist,
