List of cognitive biases

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

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 studies have found bias in
non-human animals as well. For example, loss aversion has been shown in monkeys and hyperbolic
discounting has been observed in rats, pigeons, and monkeys.[10]

Belief, decision-making and behavioral

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

Anchoring bias

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

Common source bias, the tendency to combine or compare research studies from the same source, or
from sources that use the same methodologies or data.[13]

Conservatism bias, the tendency to insufficiently revise one's belief when presented with new
evidence.[5][14][15]

Functional fixedness, a tendency limiting a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally
used.[16]

Law of the instrument, an 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."

Apophenia

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

Clustering illusion, the tendency to overestimate the importance of small runs, streaks, or clusters in
large samples of random data (that is, seeing phantom patterns).[12]

Illusory correlation, a tendency to inaccurately perceive a relationship between two unrelated events.
[18][19]

Pareidolia, a tendency to perceive a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) 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.

Availability heuristic

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

Anthropocentric thinking, the tendency to use human analogies as a basis for reasoning about other,
less familiar, biological phenomena.[21]

Anthropomorphism is characterization of animals, objects, and abstract concepts as possessing

human traits, emotions, or intentions.[22] The opposite bias, of not attributing feelings or thoughts to
another person, is dehumanised perception,[23] a type of objectification.

Attentional bias, the tendency of perception to be affected by recurring thoughts.[24]

Frequency illusion or Baader–Meinhof phenomenon. The frequency illusion is that once something has
been noticed then every instance of that thing is noticed, leading to the belief it has a high frequency
:
 of occurrence (a form of selection bias).[25] The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon is the illusion where
something that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable
frequency shortly afterwards.[26][27] It was named after an incidence of frequency illusion in which the
Baader–Meinhof Group was mentioned.[28]

Implicit association, where the speed with which people can match words depends on how closely
they are associated.

Salience bias, the tendency to focus on items that are more prominent or emotionally striking and
ignore those that are unremarkable, even though this difference is often irrelevant by objective
standards. See also von Restorff effect.

Selection bias, which happens when the members of a statistical sample are not chosen completely at
random, which leads to the sample not being representative of the population.

Survivorship bias, which is concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and
inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility.

Quantification bias, the tendency to ascribe more weight to measured/quantified metrics than to
unquantifiable values.[29] See also: McNamara fallacy.

Well travelled road effect, the tendency to underestimate the duration taken to traverse oft-travelled
routes and overestimate the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.

Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information and the mental toll of it.

Normalcy bias, a form of cognitive dissonance, is the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which
has never happened before.

Effort justification is a person's tendency to attribute greater value to an outcome if they had to put
effort into achieving it. This can result in more value being applied to an outcome than it actually has.
An example of this is the IKEA effect, the tendency for people to place a disproportionately high value
on objects that they partially assembled themselves, such as furniture from IKEA, regardless of the
quality of the end product.[30]

Ben Franklin effect, where a person who has performed a favor for someone is more likely to do
another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person.[31]

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a
way that confirms one's preconceptions.[32] There are multiple other cognitive biases which involve
or are types of confirmation bias:

Backfire effect, a tendency to react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening one's previous beliefs.
:
 [33]

Congruence bias, the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead of
testing possible alternative hypotheses.[12]

Experimenter's or expectation bias, the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish
data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or
downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.[34]

Observer-expectancy effect, when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously
manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy
effect).

Selective perception, the tendency for expectations to affect perception.

Semmelweis reflex, the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.[15]

Egocentric bias

Egocentric bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on one's own perspective and/or have a different
perception of oneself relative to others.[35] The following are forms of egocentric bias:

Bias blind spot, the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify
more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.[36]

False consensus effect, the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with
them.[37]

False uniqueness bias, the tendency of people to see their projects and themselves as more singular
than they actually are.[38]

Forer effect or Barnum effect, the tendency for individuals to give high accuracy ratings to
descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact
vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial
explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune
telling, graphology, and some types of personality tests.[39]

Illusion of asymmetric insight, where people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their
peers' knowledge of them.[40]

Illusion of control, the tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external events.
[41]

Illusion of transparency, the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which their personal
mental state is known by others, and to overestimate how well they understand others' personal
mental states.
:
 Illusion of validity, the tendency to overestimate the accuracy of one's judgments, especially when
available information is consistent or inter-correlated.[42]

Illusory superiority, the tendency to overestimate one's desirable qualities, and underestimate
undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect", "better-than-
average effect", or "superiority bias".)[43]

Naïve cynicism, expecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself.

Naïve realism, the belief that we see reality as it really is—objectively and without bias; that the facts
are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who do not are either
uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.

Overconfidence effect, a tendency to have excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions.
For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be
wrong 40% of the time.[5][44][45][46]

Planning fallacy, the tendency for people to underestimate the time it will take them to complete a
given task.[47]

Restraint bias, the tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.

Trait ascription bias, the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of
personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.

Third-person effect, a tendency to believe that mass-communicated media messages have a greater
effect on others than on themselves.

Extension neglect

Extension neglect occurs where the quantity of the sample size is not sufficiently taken into
consideration when assessing the outcome, relevance or judgement. The following are forms of
extension neglect:

Base rate fallacy or base rate neglect, the tendency to ignore general information and focus on
information only pertaining to the specific case, even when the general information is more important.
[48]

Compassion fade, the tendency to behave more compassionately towards a small number of
identifiable victims than to a large number of anonymous ones.[49]

Conjunction fallacy, the tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than a more
general version of those same conditions.[50]

Duration neglect, the neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its value.[51]

Hyperbolic discounting, where discounting is the tendency for people to have a stronger preference
:
 for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs. Hyperbolic discounting leads to choices that are
inconsistent over time—people make choices today that their future selves would prefer not to have
made, despite using the same reasoning.[52] Also known as current moment bias or present bias, and
related to Dynamic inconsistency. A good example of this is a study showed that when making food
choices for the coming week, 74% of participants chose fruit, whereas when the food choice was for
the current day, 70% chose chocolate.

Insensitivity to sample size, the tendency to under-expect variation in small samples.

Less-is-better effect, the tendency to prefer a smaller set to a larger set judged separately, but not
jointly.

Neglect of probability, the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under
uncertainty.[53]

Scope neglect or scope insensitivity, the tendency to be insensitive to the size of a problem when
evaluating it. For example, being willing to pay as much to save 2,000 children or 20,000 children.

Zero-risk bias, the preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.

False priors

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

Agent detection bias, the inclination to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent
agent.

Automation bias, the tendency to depend excessively on automated systems which can lead to
erroneous automated information overriding correct decisions.[54]

Gender bias, a widespread[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]

Sexual overperception bias, the tendency to overestimate sexual interest of another person in oneself,
and sexual underperception bias, the tendency to underestimate it.

Stereotyping, expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual
information about that individual.

Framing effect

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

Contrast effect, the enhancement or reduction of a certain stimulus's perception when compared with
:
 a recently observed, contrasting object.[58]

Decoy effect, where preferences for either option A or B change in favor of option B when option C is
presented, which is completely dominated by option B (inferior in all respects) and partially dominated
by option A.[59]

Default effect, the tendency to favor the default option when given a choice between several options.
[60]

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).[61]

Distinction bias, the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them
simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[62]

Domain neglect bias, the tendency to neglect relevant domain knowledge while solving
interdisciplinary problems.[63]

Context neglect bias, the tendency to neglect the human context of technological challenges [64]

Logical fallacy
Berkson's paradox, the tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional
probabilities.[65]

Escalation of commitment, irrational escalation, or sunk cost fallacy, where people justify increased
investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting
that the decision was probably wrong.

G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it.[66]

Gambler's fallacy, the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in
reality they are unchanged. The fallacy arises from an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large
numbers. For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin five times consecutively, so the chance of
tails coming out on the sixth flip is much greater than heads."[67]

Hot-hand fallacy (also known as "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand"), the belief that a person who
has experienced success with a random event has a greater chance of further success in additional
attempts.

Plan continuation bias, failure to recognize that the original plan of action is no longer appropriate for a
changing situation or for a situation that is different from anticipated.[68]

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

Time-saving bias, a tendency to underestimate the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing
(or decreasing) from a relatively low speed, and to overestimate the time that could be saved (or lost)
:
 when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively high speed.

Zero-sum bias, where a situation is incorrectly perceived to be like a zero-sum game (i.e., one person
gains at the expense of another).

Prospect theory

The following relate to prospect theory:

Ambiguity effect, the tendency to avoid options for which the probability of a favorable outcome is
unknown.[70]

Disposition effect, the tendency to sell an asset that has accumulated in value and resist selling an
asset that has declined in value.

Dread aversion, just as losses yield double the emotional impact of gains, dread yields double the
emotional impact of savouring.[71][72]

Endowment effect, the tendency for people to demand much more to give up an object than they
would be willing to pay to acquire it.[73]

Loss aversion, where the perceived disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated
with acquiring it.[74] (see also Sunk cost fallacy)

Pseudocertainty effect, the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive,
but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.[75]

Status quo bias, the tendency to prefer things to stay relatively the same.[76][77]

System justification, the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and
political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged, sometimes even at the
expense of individual and collective self-interest.

Self-assessment
Dunning–Kruger effect, the tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the
tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.[78]

Hot-cold empathy gap, the tendency to underestimate the influence of visceral drives on one's
attitudes, preferences, and behaviors.[79]

Hard–easy effect, the tendency to overestimate one's ability to accomplish hard tasks, and
underestimate one's ability to accomplish easy tasks.[5][80][81][82]

Illusion of explanatory depth, the tendency to believe that one understands a topic much better than
one actually does.[83][84] The effect is strongest for explanatory knowledge, whereas people tend to
be better at self-assessments for procedural, narrative, or factual knowledge.[84][85]

Impostor Syndrome, a psychological occurrence in which an individual doubts their skills, talents, or
:
 accomplishments and has a persistent internalized fear of being exposed as a fraud. Also known as
impostor phenomenon.[86]

Objectivity illusion, the phenomena where people tend to believe that they are more objective and
unbiased than others. This bias can apply to itself – where people are able to see when others are
affected by the objectivity illusion, but unable to see it in themselves. See also bias blind spot.[87]

Truth judgment
Belief bias, an effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by
the believability of the conclusion.[88]

Illusory truth effect, the 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.

Rhyme as reason effect, where rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful.

Subjective validation, where statements are perceived as true if a subject's belief demands it to be
true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences. (Compare confirmation bias.)

Other

Name Description

The tendency for someone to act when faced with a problem even when inaction
Action bias
would be more effective, or to act when no evident problem exists.[89][90]

The tendency to solve problems through addition, even when subtraction is a better
Additive bias
approach.[91][92]

Occurs when a judgment has to be made (of a target attribute) that is computationally
Attribute complex, and instead a more easily calculated heuristic attribute is substituted. This
substitution substitution is thought of as taking place in the automatic intuitive judgment system,
rather than the more self-aware reflective system.

Curse of When better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from
knowledge the perspective of lesser-informed people.[93]

The predisposition to view the past favorably (rosy retrospection) and future
Declinism
negatively.[94]

End-of-history The age-independent belief that one will change less in the future than one has in the
illusion past.[95]

Exaggerated The tendency to expect or predict more extreme outcomes than those outcomes that
expectation actually happen.[5]

In human–robot interaction, the tendency of people to make systematic errors when

Form function
interacting with a robot. People may base their expectations and perceptions of a
attribution
:
bias robot on its appearance (form) and attribute functions which do not necessarily mirror
the true functions of the robot.[96]

Fundamental The tendency for people to believe they accurately report their own pain levels while
pain bias holding the paradoxical belief that others exaggerate it.[97]

The tendency for people who are satisfied with their wage to overestimate how much
Hedonic recall
they earn, and vice versa, for people who are unsatisfied with their wage to
bias
underestimate it.[98]

Sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, or the "Hindsight is 20/20" effect, is

Hindsight bias
the tendency to see past events as having been predictable[99] before they happened.

The tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling
Impact bias
states.[47]

Information
The tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.[100]
bias

Interoceptive The tendency for sensory input about the body itself to affect one's judgement about
bias or Hungry external, unrelated circumstances. (As for example, in parole judges who are more
judge effect lenient when fed and rested.)[101][102][103][104]

The tendency to concentrate on the nominal value (face value) of money rather than its
Money illusion
value in terms of purchasing power.[105]

Moral
Occurs when someone who does something good gives themselves permission to be
credential
less good in the future.
effect

After experiencing a bad outcome with a decision problem, the tendency to avoid the
Non-adaptive
choice previously made when faced with the same decision problem again, even
choice
though the choice was optimal. Also known as "once bitten, twice shy" or "hot stove
switching
effect".[106]

Mere
exposure
effect or
The tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with
familiarity
them.[107]
principle (in
social
psychology)

The tendency to judge harmful actions (commissions) as worse, or less moral, than
Omission bias
equally harmful inactions (omissions).[108]

The tendency to be over-optimistic, underestimating greatly the probability of

undesirable outcomes and overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes (see also
:
Optimism bias wishful thinking, valence effect, positive outcome bias, and compare pessimism bias).
[109][110]

Ostrich effect Ignoring an obvious negative situation.

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

Pessimism The tendency for some people, especially those with depression, to overestimate the
bias likelihood of negative things happening to them. (compare optimism bias)

The tendency of people to give stronger weight to payoffs that are closer to the
Present bias
present time when considering trade-offs between two future moments.[111]

Plant The tendency to ignore plants in their environment and a failure to recognize and
blindness appreciate the utility of plants to life on earth.[112]

When investing money to protect against risks, decision makers perceive that a dollar
Prevention
spent on prevention buys more security than a dollar spent on timely detection and
bias
response, even when investing in either option is equally effective.[113]

Probability Sub-optimal matching of the probability of choices with the probability of reward in a
matching stochastic context.

The tendency to have an excessive optimism towards an invention or innovation's

Pro-innovation
usefulness throughout society, while often failing to identify its limitations and
bias
weaknesses.

Projection The tendency to overestimate how much one's future selves will share one's current
bias preferences, thoughts and values, thus leading to sub-optimal choices.[114][115][116]

Proportionality Our innate tendency to assume that big events have big causes, may also explain our
bias tendency to accept conspiracy theories.[117][118]

The illusion that a phenomenon one has noticed only recently is itself recent. Often
used to refer to linguistic phenomena; the illusion that a word or language usage that
one has noticed only recently is an innovation when it is, in fact, long-established (see
Recency
also frequency illusion). Also recency bias is a cognitive bias that favors recent events
illusion
over historic ones. A memory bias, recency bias gives "greater importance to the most
recent event",[119] such as the final lawyer's closing argument a jury hears before being
dismissed to deliberate.

Systematic Judgement that arises when targets of differentiating judgement become subject to
bias effects of regression that are not equivalent.[120]

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

Losing sight of the strategic construct that a measure is intended to represent, and
Surrogation
subsequently acting as though the measure is the construct of interest.

The tendency to engage in overgeneralized ascriptions of purpose to entities and

Teleological
events that did not arise from goal-directed action, design, or selection based on
Bias
functional effects.[121][122]

Turkey illusion Absence of expectation of sudden trend breaks in continuous developments

The underlying attitudes and stereotypes that people unconsciously attribute to

Unconscious
another person or group of people that affect how they understand and engage with
bias or implicit
them. Many researchers suggest that unconscious bias occurs automatically as the
bias
brain makes quick judgments based on past experiences and background.[123]

The standard suggested amount of consumption (e.g., food serving size) is perceived
Unit bias to be appropriate, and a person would consume it all even if it is too much for this
particular person.[124]

Value The tendency to rely on existing numerical data when reasoning in an unfamiliar
selection bias context, even if calculation or numerical manipulation is required.[125][126]

Weber–
Difficulty in comparing small differences in large quantities.
Fechner law

Women are
wonderful A tendency to associate more positive attributes with women than with men.
effect

Social

Association fallacy

Association fallacies include:

Authority bias, the tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure
(unrelated to its content) and be more influenced by that opinion.[127]

Cheerleader effect, the tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.[128]

Halo effect, the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one personality
area to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).[129]
Attribution bias

Attribution bias includes:

Actor-observer bias, the tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviors to overemphasize
:
 the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see also
Fundamental attribution error), and for explanations of one's own behaviors to do the opposite (that is,
to overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own
personality).

Defensive attribution hypothesis, a tendency to attribute more blame to a harm-doer as the outcome
becomes more severe or as personal or situational similarity to the victim increases.

Extrinsic incentives bias, an exception to the fundamental attribution error, where people view others
as having (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsic motivations for oneself

Fundamental attribution error, the tendency for people to overemphasize personality-based

explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of
situational influences on the same behavior[116] (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error,
positivity effect, and negativity effect).[130]

Group attribution error, the biased belief that the characteristics of an individual group member are
reflective of the group as a whole or the tendency to assume that group decision outcomes reflect the
preferences of group members, even when information is available that clearly suggests otherwise.

Hostile attribution bias, the tendency to interpret others' behaviors as having hostile intent, even when
the behavior is ambiguous or benign.[131]

Intentionality bias, the tendency to judge human action to be intentional rather than accidental.[132]

Just-world hypothesis, the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just,
causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s).

Moral luck, the tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on the outcome
of an event.

Puritanical bias, the tendency to attribute cause of an undesirable outcome or wrongdoing by an

individual to a moral deficiency or lack of self-control rather than taking into account the impact of
broader societal determinants .[133]

Self-serving bias, the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also
manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their
interests (see also group-serving bias).[134]

Ultimate attribution error, similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to
make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.
Conformity

Conformity is involved in the following:

Availability cascade, a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more
:
 plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and
it will become true").[135] See also availability heuristic.

Bandwagon effect, the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe)
the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.[136]

Courtesy bias, the tendency to give an opinion that is more socially correct than one's true opinion, so
as to avoid offending anyone.[137]

Groupthink, the psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire
for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making
outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical
evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating
themselves from outside influences.

Groupshift, the tendency for decisions to be more risk-seeking or risk-averse than the group as a
whole, if the group is already biased in that direction

Social desirability bias, the tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours in
oneself and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviours.[138] See also: § Courtesy
bias.

Truth bias is people's inclination towards believing, to some degree, the communication of another
person, regardless of whether or not that person is actually lying or being untruthful.[139][140]
Ingroup bias

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

Not invented here, an aversion to contact with or use of products, research, standards, or knowledge
developed outside a group.

Outgroup homogeneity bias, where individuals see members of other groups as being relatively less
varied than members of their own group.[141]
Other social biases
:
 Name Description

Where an individual assumes that others have more traits in common

Assumed similarity bias
with them than those others actually do.[142]

When some socially disadvantaged groups will express favorable

Outgroup favoritism attitudes (and even preferences) toward social, cultural, or ethnic groups
other than their own.[143]

The phenomenon whereby others' expectations of a target person affect

Pygmalion effect
the target person's performance.

The urge to do the opposite of what someone wants one to do out of a

Reactance need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain one's freedom of choice
(see also Reverse psychology).

Devaluing proposals only because they purportedly originated with an

Reactive devaluation
adversary.

The tendency, when making decisions, to favour potential candidates

Social comparison bias
who do not compete with one's own particular strengths.[144]

The tendency for group members to spend more time and energy
discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e.,
Shared information bias
shared information), and less time and energy discussing information
that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information).[145]

A tendency to believe ourselves to be worse than others at tasks which

Worse-than-average effect
are difficult.[146]

Memory

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

Misattribution of memory
In psychology, the misattribution of memory or source misattribution is the misidentification of the origin
of a memory by the person making the memory recall. Misattribution is likely to occur when individuals
are unable to monitor and control the influence of their attitudes, toward their judgments, at the time of
retrieval.[147] Misattribution is divided into three components: cryptomnesia, false memories, and source
confusion. It was originally noted as one of Daniel Schacter's seven sins of memory.[148]
:
The misattributions include:

Cryptomnesia, where a memory is mistaken for novel thought or imagination, because there is no
subjective experience of it being a memory.[149]

False memory, where imagination is mistaken for a memory.

Social cryptomnesia, a failure by people and society in general to remember the origin of a change, in
which people know that a change has occurred in society, but forget how this change occurred; that is,
the steps that were taken to bring this change about, and who took these steps. This has led to
reduced social credit towards the minorities who made major sacrifices that led to a change in societal
values.[150]

Source confusion, episodic memories are confused with other information, creating distorted
memories.[151]

Suggestibility, where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.

The Perky effect, where real images can influence imagined images, or be misremembered as
imagined rather than real

Other memory biases

Name Description

Greater likelihood of recalling recent, nearby, or otherwise immediately

Availability bias available examples, and the imputation of importance to those examples
over others.

Bizarreness effect Bizarre material is better remembered than common material.

Remembering the background of an image as being larger or more

Boundary extension
expansive than the foreground[152]

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

The tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually

Choice-supportive bias
were.[153]

The tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that

Confirmation bias confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. See also under § Confirmation
bias.

Tendency to remember high values and high

Conservatism or Regressive likelihoods/probabilities/frequencies as lower than they actually were and
bias low ones as higher than they actually were. Based on the evidence,
memories are not extreme enough.[154][155]

Incorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as

Consistency bias
:
 resembling present attitudes and behaviour.[156]

Misinformation continues to influence memory and reasoning about an

event, despite the misinformation having been corrected.[157] cf.
Continued influence effect
misinformation effect, where the original memory is affected by
incorrect information received later.

That cognition and memory are dependent on context, such that out-of-
context memories are more difficult to retrieve than in-context memories
Context effect
(e.g., recall time and accuracy for a work-related memory will be lower at
home, and vice versa).

The tendency for people of one race to have difficulty identifying

Cross-race effect
members of a race other than their own.

Recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g., remembering one's

Egocentric bias exam grades as being better than they were, or remembering a caught
fish as bigger than it really was.

The tendency of people to remember past experiences in a positive light,

Euphoric recall
while overlooking negative experiences associated with that event.

A bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades

Fading affect bias
more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.[158]

That self-generated information is remembered best. For instance,

Generation effect (Self-
people are better able to recall memories of statements that they have
generation effect)
generated than similar statements generated by others.

Gender differences in The tendency for a witness to remember more details about someone of
eyewitness memory the same gender.

The tendency to forget information that can be found readily online by

Google effect
using Internet search engines.

Hindsight bias ("I-knew-it-

The inclination to see past events as having been predictable.
all-along" effect)

That humorous items are more easily remembered than non-humorous

ones, which might be explained by the distinctiveness of humor, the
Humor effect
increased cognitive processing time to understand the humor, or the
emotional arousal caused by the humor.[159]

Inaccurately seeing a relationship between two events related by

Illusory correlation coincidence.[160] See also under {{Section link}}: required section
parameter(s) missing

People are more likely to identify as true statements those they have
previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having
:
Illusory truth effect (Illusion- heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement. In other
of-truth effect) words, a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an
unfamiliar one. See also under {{Section link}}: required section
parameter(s) missing

The phenomenon whereby learning is greater when studying is spread

Lag effect out over time, as opposed to studying the same amount of time in a
single session. See also spacing effect.

Memory distortions introduced by the loss of details in a recollection

over time, often concurrent with sharpening or selective recollection of
certain details that take on exaggerated significance in relation to the
Leveling and sharpening
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.[161]

That different methods of encoding information into memory have

Levels-of-processing effect
different levels of effectiveness.[162]

A smaller percentage of items are remembered in a longer list, but as the

List-length effect length of the list increases, the absolute number of items remembered
increases as well.[163]

Being shown some items from a list makes it harder to retrieve the other
Memory inhibition
items (e.g., Slamecka, 1968).

Memory becoming less accurate because of interference from post-

event information.[164] cf. continued influence effect, where
Misinformation effect
misinformation about an event, despite later being corrected, continues
to influence memory about the event.

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

Mood-congruent memory
bias (state-dependent The improved recall of information congruent with one's current mood.
memory)

Psychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall of

Negativity bias or Negativity unpleasant memories compared with positive memories.[165][116] (see
effect also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and
negativity effect).[130]

When taking turns speaking in a group using a predetermined order (e.g.

going clockwise around a room, taking numbers, etc.) people tend to
Next-in-line effect
:
 have diminished recall for the words of the person who spoke
immediately before them.[166]

That being shown some items from a list and later retrieving one item
Part-list cueing effect
causes it to become harder to retrieve the other items.[167]

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

Persistence The unwanted recurrence of memories of a traumatic event.

The notion that concepts that are learned by viewing pictures are more
Picture superiority effect easily and frequently recalled than are concepts that are learned by
viewing their written word form counterparts.[168][169][170][171][172][173]

Tendency to remember ourselves to be better than others at tasks at

which we rate ourselves above average (also Illusory superiority or
Placement bias Better-than-average effect)[78] and tendency to remember ourselves to
be worse than others at tasks at which we rate ourselves below average
(also Worse-than-average effect).[174]

Positivity effect
That older adults favor positive over negative information in their
(Socioemotional selectivity
memories. See also euphoric recall
theory)

Where an item at the beginning of a list is more easily recalled. A form of

Primacy effect
serial position effect. See also recency effect and suffix effect.

That information that takes longer to read and is thought about more
Processing difficulty effect (processed with more difficulty) is more easily remembered.[175] See
also levels-of-processing effect.

A form of serial position effect where an item at the end of a list is easier
Recency effect to recall. This can be disrupted by the suffix effect. See also primacy
effect.

The recalling of more personal events from adolescence and early

Reminiscence bump
adulthood than personal events from other lifetime periods.[176]

Unexpected difficulty in remembering more than one instance of a visual

Repetition blindness
sequence

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

Communicating a socially tuned message to an audience can lead to a

Saying is believing effect
bias of identifying the tuned message as one's own thoughts.[177]

Self-relevance effect That memories relating to the self are better recalled than similar
information relating to others.
:
 That items near the end of a sequence are the easiest to recall, followed
by the items at the beginning of a sequence; items in the middle are the
Serial position effect
least likely to be remembered.[178] See also recency effect, primacy
effect and suffix effect.

That information is better recalled if exposure to it is repeated over a

Spacing effect
long span of time rather than a short one.

The tendency to overestimate the amount that other people notice one's
Spotlight effect
appearance or behavior.

Stereotype bias or
Memory distorted towards stereotypes (e.g., racial or gender).
stereotypical bias

Diminishment of the recency effect because a sound item is appended

Suffix effect to the list that the subject is not required to recall.[179][180] A form of
serial position effect. Cf. recency effect and primacy effect.

The tendency to estimate that the likelihood of a remembered event is

Subadditivity effect less than the sum of its (more than two) mutually exclusive components.
[181]

When time perceived by the individual either lengthens, making events

Tachypsychia
appear to slow down, or contracts.[182]

The tendency to displace recent events backwards in time and remote

Telescoping effect events forward in time, so that recent events appear more remote, and
remote events, more recent.

The fact that one more easily recall information one has read by
Testing effect rewriting it instead of rereading it.[183] Frequent testing of material that
has been committed to memory improves memory recall.

When a subject is able to recall parts of an item, or related information,

Tip of the tongue but is frustratingly unable to recall the whole item. This is thought to be
phenomenon an instance of "blocking" where multiple similar memories are being
recalled and interfere with each other.[149]

Overestimating the significance of the present.[184] It is related to

Travis syndrome chronological snobbery with possibly an appeal to novelty logical fallacy
being part of the bias.

That the "gist" of what someone has said is better remembered than the
Verbatim effect verbatim wording.[185] This is because memories are representations,
not exact copies.

That an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered than other
von Restorff effect items.[186]
:
 That uncompleted or interrupted tasks are remembered better than
Zeigarnik effect
completed ones.

See also

Abilene paradox – False consensus due to communication failure

Psychology portal
Affective forecasting – Predicting someone's future emotions (affect)
Society portal
Anecdotal evidence – Evidence relying on personal testimony
Philosophy portal
Attribution (psychology) – Process by which individuals explain causes of behavior
and events

Black swan theory – Theory of response to surprise events

Chronostasis – Distortion in the perception of time

Cognitive distortion – Exaggerated or irrational thought pattern

Defence mechanism – Unconscious psychological mechanism

Dysrationalia – Inability to think and behave rationally despite adequate intelligence

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt – Tactic used to influence opinion

Heuristics in judgment and decision making – Simple strategies or mental

processes involved in making quick decisions

Index of public relations-related articles – Overview of and topical guide to public

relations

List of common misconceptions

List of fallacies

List of maladaptive schemas – List on psychotherapy topic

List of psychological effects

Media bias – Bias within the mass media

Mind projection fallacy – Informal fallacy that the way one sees the world reflects
the way the world really is

Motivated reasoning – Using emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications

or make decisions

Observational error, also known as Systematic bias – Difference between a

measured value of a quantity and its true value

Outline of public relations – Overview of and topical guide to public relations

:
 Outline of thought – Overview of and topical guide to thought

Pollyanna principle – Tendency to remember pleasant things better

Positive feedback – Feedback loop that increases an initial small effect

Propaganda – Communication used to influence opinion

Publication bias – Higher probability of publishing results showing a significant

finding

Recall bias – Type of cognitive bias

Self-handicapping – Cognitive strategy

Thinking, Fast and Slow – 2011 book by Daniel Kahneman

Footnotes

1. Haselton MG, Nettle D, Andrews PW (2005). "The evolution of cognitive bias" (http://www.sscnet.uc
la.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/handbookevpsych.pdf) (PDF). In Buss DM (ed.). The
Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp. 724–746.

2. "Cognitive Bias – Association for Psychological Science" (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/ta

g/cognitive-bias) . www.psychologicalscience.org. Retrieved 2018-10-10.

3. Thomas O (2018-01-19). "Two decades of cognitive bias research in entrepreneurship: What do we

know and where do we go from here?". Management Review Quarterly. 68 (2): 107–143.
doi:10.1007/s11301-018-0135-9 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11301-018-0135-9) . ISSN 2198-
1620 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/2198-1620) . S2CID 148611312 (https://api.semanticscholar.
org/CorpusID:148611312) .

4. Dougherty MR, Gettys CF, Ogden EE (1999). "MINERVA-DM: A memory processes model for
judgments of likelihood" (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/psyc/dougherty/PDF%20articles/Dougherty,Gett
ys&Ogden,1999.pdf) (PDF). Psychological Review. 106 (1): 180–209. doi:10.1037/0033-
295x.106.1.180 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295x.106.1.180) .

5. Hilbert M (March 2012). "Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing
can bias human decision making" (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-27261-001) .
Psychological Bulletin. 138 (2): 211–37. doi:10.1037/a0025940 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa002594
0) . PMID 22122235 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22122235) .

6. Gigerenzer G (2006). "Bounded and Rational". In Stainton RJ (ed.). Contemporary Debates in

Cognitive Science. Blackwell. p. 129. ISBN 978-1-4051-1304-5.

7. MacCoun RJ (1998). "Biases in the interpretation and use of research results" (http://socrates.berke
ley.edu/~maccoun/MacCoun_AnnualReview98.pdf) (PDF). Annual Review of Psychology. 49 (1):
259–287. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.49.1.25
:
 259–287. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.49.1.25
9) . PMID 15012470 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15012470) .

8. Nickerson RS (1998). "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises" (http://psy2.u

csd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf) (PDF). Review of General Psychology. 2 (2):
175–220 [198]. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.2.2.175) .
S2CID 8508954 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:8508954) .

9. Dardenne B, Leyens JP (1995). "Confirmation Bias as a Social Skill" (http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/22

68/28639) . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21 (11): 1229–1239.
doi:10.1177/01461672952111011 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01461672952111011) .
S2CID 146709087 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:146709087) .

10. Alexander WH, Brown JW (June 2010). "Hyperbolically discounted temporal difference learning" (ht
tps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005720) . Neural Computation. 22 (6): 1511–1527.
doi:10.1162/neco.2010.08-09-1080 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2Fneco.2010.08-09-1080) .
PMC 3005720 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005720) . PMID 20100071 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20100071) .

11. Zhang Y, Lewis M, Pellon M, Coleman P (2007). A Preliminary Research on Modeling Cognitive
Agents for Social Environments in Multi-Agent Systems (http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/2
007/FS-07-04/FS07-04-017.pdf) (PDF). 2007 AAAI Fall Symposium: Emergent agents and
socialities: Social and organizational aspects of intelligence. Association for the Advancement of
Artificial Intelligence. pp. 116–123.

12. Iverson GL, Brooks BL, Holdnack JA (2008). "Misdiagnosis of Cognitive Impairment in Forensic
Neuropsychology". In Heilbronner RL (ed.). Neuropsychology in the Courtroom: Expert Analysis of
Reports and Testimony. New York: Guilford Press. p. 248. ISBN 978-1-59385-634-2.

13. Kim M, Daniel JL (2020-01-02). "Common Source Bias, Key Informants, and Survey-Administrative
Linked Data for Nonprofit Management Research" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/153
09576.2019.1657915) . Public Performance & Management Review. 43 (1): 232–256.
doi:10.1080/15309576.2019.1657915 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F15309576.2019.1657915) .
ISSN 1530-9576 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1530-9576) . S2CID 203468837 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:203468837) . Retrieved 23 June 2021.

14. DuCharme WW (1970). "Response bias explanation of conservative human inference". Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 85 (1): 66–74. doi:10.1037/h0029546 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh00295
46) . hdl:2060/19700009379 (https://hdl.handle.net/2060%2F19700009379) .

15. Edwards W (1968). "Conservatism in human information processing". In Kleinmuntz B (ed.). Formal
representation of human judgment. New York: Wiley. pp. 17–52.

16. "The Psychology Guide: What Does Functional Fixedness Mean?" (https://psychologenie.com/what-
does-functional-fixedness-mean-in-psychology) . PsycholoGenie. Retrieved 2018-10-10.

17. Carroll RT. "apophenia" (http://skepdic.com/apophenia.html) . The Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved

:
17. Carroll RT. "apophenia" (http://skepdic.com/apophenia.html) . The Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved
17 July 2017.

18. Tversky A, Kahneman D (September 1974). "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases".
Science. 185 (4157): 1124–1131. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19
74Sci...185.1124T) . doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.185.415
7.1124) . PMID 17835457 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17835457) . S2CID 143452957 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143452957) .

19. Fiedler K (1991). "The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of
distinctiveness-based illusory correlations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (1):
24–36. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.24 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.60.1.24) .

20. Schwarz N, Bless H, Strack F, Klumpp G, Rittenauer-Schatka H, Simons A (1991). "Ease of Retrieval
as Information: Another Look at the Availability Heuristic" (https://web.archive.org/web/2014020917
5640/http://osil.psy.ua.edu:16080/~Rosanna/Soc_Inf/week4/availability.pdf) (PDF). Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 61 (2): 195–202. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195 (https://doi.or
g/10.1037%2F0022-3514.61.2.195) . Archived from the original (http://osil.psy.ua.edu:16080/~Ros
anna/Soc_Inf/week4/availability.pdf) (PDF) on 9 February 2014. Retrieved 19 Oct 2014.

21. Coley JD, Tanner KD (2012). "Common origins of diverse misconceptions: cognitive principles and
the development of biology thinking" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433289) .
CBE: Life Sciences Education. 11 (3): 209–215. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-06-0074 (https://doi.org/10.118
7%2Fcbe.12-06-0074) . PMC 3433289 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC343328
9) . PMID 22949417 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22949417) .

22. "The Real Reason We Dress Pets Like People" (http://www.livescience.com/6141-real-reason-dress-

pets-people.html) . Live Science. 3 March 2010. Retrieved 2015-11-16.

23. Harris LT, Fiske ST (January 2011). "Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate
Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3915417) .
Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 219 (3): 175–181. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000065 (https://doi.org/10.10
27%2F2151-2604%2Fa000065) . PMC 3915417 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3
915417) . PMID 24511459 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24511459) .

24. Bar-Haim Y, Lamy D, Pergamin L, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH (January 2007).
"Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study" (http
s://people.socsci.tau.ac.il/mu/dominiquelamy/files/2014/08/Bar-Haim_et_2007.pdf) (PDF).
Psychological Bulletin. 133 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F00
33-2909.133.1.1) . PMID 17201568 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17201568) . S2CID 2861872
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2861872) .

25. Zwicky A (2005-08-07). "Just Between Dr. Language and I" (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languag
elog/archives/002386.html) . Language Log.

26. Bellows A (March 2006). "The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon" (https://www.damninteresting.com/th

:
26. Bellows A (March 2006). "The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon" (https://www.damninteresting.com/th
e-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/) . Damn Interesting. Retrieved 2020-02-16.

27. Kershner K (20 March 2015). "What's the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon?" (https://science.howstuff
works.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/baader-meinhof-phenomenon.htm) .
howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 15 April 2018.

28. "The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon? Or: The Joy Of Juxtaposition?" (https://www.twincities.com/20

07/02/23/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon-or-the-joy-of-juxtaposition-responsorial-23-23-23-23
-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23/) . twincities.com. St. Paul
Pioneer Press. 23 February 2007. Retrieved October 20, 2020. "As you might guess, the
phenomenon is named after an incident in which I was talking to a friend about the Baader-Meinhof
gang (and this was many years after they were in the news). The next day, my friend phoned me and
referred me to an article in that day's newspaper in which the Baader-Meinhof gang was
mentioned."

29. Maiers, Claire (2018). "Reading the Tea Leaves: Ethnographic Prediction as Evidence" (https://online
library.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1559-8918.2018.01212) . Ethnographic Praxis in Industry
Conference Proceedings. 2018 (1): 351–363. doi:10.1111/1559-8918.2018.01212 (https://doi.org/10.1
111%2F1559-8918.2018.01212) . ISSN 1559-8918 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1559-8918) .
Retrieved 2025-01-30.

30. Michael I. Norton, Daniel Mochon, Dan Ariely (2011). The "IKEA Effect": When Labor Leads to Love (
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-091.pdf) . Harvard Business School

31. Lebowitz S (2 December 2016). "Harness the power of the 'Ben Franklin Effect' to get someone to
like you" (https://www.businessinsider.in/Harness-the-power-of-the-Ben-Franklin-Effect-to-get-so
meone-to-like-you/articleshow/55757370.cms) . Business Insider. Retrieved 2018-10-10.

32. Oswald ME, Grosjean S (2004). "Confirmation Bias" (https://archive.org/details/cognitiveillusio0000

unse/page/79) . In Pohl RF (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in
Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 79–96 (https://archive.org/deta
ils/cognitiveillusio0000unse/page/79) . ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398 (https://searc
h.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398) – via Internet Archive.

33. Sanna LJ, Schwarz N, Stocker SL (2002). "When debiasing backfires: Accessible content and
accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight" (https://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/acc_invest_
march2010/speakers/4DebiasBackfires.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition. 28 (3): 497–502. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.387.5964 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vi
ewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.387.5964) . doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.497 (https://doi.org/10.1037%
2F0278-7393.28.3.497) . ISSN 0278-7393 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0278-7393) .
PMID 12018501 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12018501) .

34. Jeng M (2006). "A selected history of expectation bias in physics". American Journal of Physics. 74
(7): 578–583. arXiv:physics/0508199 (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508199) .
:
 (7): 578–583. arXiv:physics/0508199 (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508199) .
Bibcode:2006AmJPh..74..578J (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AmJPh..74..578J) .
doi:10.1119/1.2186333 (https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.2186333) . S2CID 119491123 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:119491123) .

35. Schacter DL, Gilbert DT, Wegner DM (2011). Psychology (https://books.google.com/books?id=emAy

zTNy1cUC) (2nd ed.). Macmillan. p. 254. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.

36. Pronin E, Kugler MB (July 2007). "Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as
a source of the bias blind spot". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 43 (4): 565–578.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.011 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jesp.2006.05.011) . ISSN 0022-1031 (ht
tps://search.worldcat.org/issn/0022-1031) .

37. Marks G, Miller N (1987). "Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and
theoretical review". Psychological Bulletin. 102 (1): 72–90. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72 (https://
doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.102.1.72) .

38. "False Uniqueness Bias (Social PsychologyY) – IResearchNet" (http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/

social-psychology/social-cognition/false-uniqueness-bias/) . 2016-01-13.

39. "The Barnum Demonstration" (http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/barnum_demo.ht

m) . psych.fullerton.edu. Retrieved 2018-10-10.

40. Pronin E, Kruger J, Savitsky K, Ross L (October 2001). "You don't know me, but I know you: the
illusion of asymmetric insight". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (4): 639–656.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.639 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.81.4.639) .
PMID 11642351 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11642351) .

41. Thompson SC (1999). "Illusions of Control: How We Overestimate Our Personal Influence". Current
Directions in Psychological Science. 8 (6): 187–190. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00044 (https://doi.org/1
0.1111%2F1467-8721.00044) . ISSN 0963-7214 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0963-7214) .
JSTOR 20182602 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182602) . S2CID 145714398 (https://api.semanti
cscholar.org/CorpusID:145714398) .

42. Dierkes M, Antal AB, Child J, Nonaka I (2003). Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge
(https://books.google.com/books?id=JRd7RZzzw_wC&pg=PA22) . Oxford University Press. p. 22.
ISBN 978-0-19-829582-2. Retrieved 9 September 2013.

43. Hoorens V (1993). "Self-enhancement and Superiority Biases in Social Comparison". European
Review of Social Psychology. 4 (1): 113–139. doi:10.1080/14792779343000040 (https://doi.org/10.1
080%2F14792779343000040) .

44. Adams PA, Adams JK (December 1960). "Confidence in the recognition and reproduction of words
difficult to spell". The American Journal of Psychology. 73 (4): 544–552. doi:10.2307/1419942 (http
s://doi.org/10.2307%2F1419942) . JSTOR 1419942 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1419942) .
PMID 13681411 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13681411) .
:
45. Hoffrage U (2004). "Overconfidence" (https://archive.org/details/cognitiveillusio0000unse) . In
Pohl R (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: a handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and
memory (https://archive.org/details/cognitiveillusio0000unse) . Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-
84169-351-4.

46. Sutherland 2007, pp. 172–178

47. Sanna LJ, Schwarz N (July 2004). "Integrating temporal biases: the interplay of focal thoughts and
accessibility experiences". Psychological Science. 15 (7): 474–481. doi:10.1111/j.0956-
7976.2004.00704.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0956-7976.2004.00704.x) . PMID 15200632 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15200632) . S2CID 10998751 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu
sID:10998751) .

48. Baron 1994, pp. 224–228

49. Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mayorga M, Peters E (18 June 2014). "Compassion fade: affect and charity are
greatest for a single child in need" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062481) .
PLOS ONE. 9 (6): e100115. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j0115V (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014P
LoSO...9j0115V) . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100115 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.010011
5) . PMC 4062481 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062481) . PMID 24940738 (
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24940738) .

50. Fisk JE (2004). "Conjunction fallacy" (https://archive.org/details/cognitiveillusio0000unse/page/2

3) . In Pohl RF (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking,
Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 23–42 (https://archive.org/details/cogniti
veillusio0000unse/page/23) . ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398 (https://search.worldcat.
org/oclc/55124398) .

51. Barbara L. Fredrickson and Daniel Kahneman (1993). Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations
of Affective Episodes (http://pages.ucsd.edu/~nchristenfeld/Happiness_Readings_files/Class%20
9%20-%20Fredrickson%201993.pdf) . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65 (1) pp.
45–55. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170808092231/http://pages.ucsd.edu/~nchristenfe
ld/Happiness_Readings_files/Class%209%20-%20Fredrickson%201993.pdf) 2017-08-08 at the
Wayback Machine

52. Laibson D (1997). "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting". Quarterly Journal of Economics. 112
(2): 443–477. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.337.3544 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.
337.3544) . doi:10.1162/003355397555253 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2F003355397555253) .
S2CID 763839 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:763839) .

53. Baron 1994, p. 353

54. Goddard K, Roudsari A, Wyatt JC (2011). "Automation Bias – A Hidden Issue for Clinical Decision
Support System Use" (https://books.google.com/books?id=NsbaN_fXRe4C&pg=PA17) .
International Perspectives in Health Informatics. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics.
:
 International Perspectives in Health Informatics. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics.
Vol. 164. IOS Press. pp. 17–22. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-709-3-17 (https://doi.org/10.3233%2F978
-1-60750-709-3-17) .

55. Tackling social norms: a game changer for gender inequalities (http://hdr.undp.org/en/GSNI)
(Gender Social Norms Index). 2020 Human Development Perspectives. United Nations
Development Programme. Retrieved 2020-06-10.

56. Bian L, Leslie SJ, Cimpian A (December 2018). "Evidence of bias against girls and women in
contexts that emphasize intellectual ability" (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Famp0000427) . The
American Psychologist. 73 (9): 1139–1153. doi:10.1037/amp0000427 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fam
p0000427) . PMID 30525794 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30525794) .

57. Hamilton MC (1991). "Masculine Bias in the Attribution of Personhood: People = Male, Male =
People". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 15 (3): 393–402. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00415.x
(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1471-6402.1991.tb00415.x) . ISSN 0361-6843 (https://search.worldca
t.org/issn/0361-6843) . S2CID 143533483 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14353348
3) .

58. Plous 1993, pp. 38–41

59. "Evolution and cognitive biases: the decoy effect" (https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/complexity

-and-uncertainty/0/steps/1882) . FutureLearn. Retrieved 2018-10-10.

60. "The Default Effect: How to Leverage Bias and Influence Behavior" (https://www.influenceatwork.co
m/inside-influence-report/how-to-use-and-improve-actions-through-enhanced-defaults/) .
Influence at Work. 2012-01-11. Retrieved 2018-10-10.

61. Why We Spend Coins Faster Than Bills (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104

063298) by Chana Joffe-Walt. All Things Considered, 12 May 2009.

62. Hsee CK, Zhang J (May 2004). "Distinction bias: misprediction and mischoice due to joint
evaluation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86 (5): 680–695.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.484.9171 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.484.9171) .
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.680 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.86.5.680) .
PMID 15161394 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15161394) .

63. Mike K, Hazzan O (2022). "What Is Common to Transportation and Health in Machine Learning
Education? The Domain Neglect Bias" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9941067) . IEEE
Transactions on Education. 66 (3): 226–233. doi:10.1109/TE.2022.3218013 (https://doi.org/10.110
9%2FTE.2022.3218013) . ISSN 0018-9359 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0018-9359) .
S2CID 253402007 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:253402007) .

64. Binah-Pollak, Avital; Hazzan, Orit; Mike, Koby; Hacohen, Ronit Lis (2024-01-05). "Anthropological
thinking in data science education: Thinking within context" (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12
444-7) . Education and Information Technologies. doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12444-7 (https://doi.or
g/10.1007%2Fs10639-023-12444-7) . ISSN 1573-7608 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1573-760
:
 g/10.1007%2Fs10639-023-12444-7) . ISSN 1573-7608 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1573-760
8) .

65. "Berkson's Paradox | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki" (https://brilliant.org/wiki/berksons-paradox/) .

brilliant.org. Retrieved 2018-10-10.

66. Kristal AS, Santos LR, G.I. Joe Phenomena: Understanding the Limits of Metacognitive Awareness
on Debiasing (https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/21-084_436ebba8-c832-4922-bb6e-4
9d000a77df3.pdf) (PDF), Harvard Business School

67. Investopedia Staff (2006-10-29). "Gambler's Fallacy/Monte Carlo Fallacy" (https://www.investopedi

a.com/terms/g/gamblersfallacy.asp) . Investopedia. Retrieved 2018-10-10.

68. Tuccio W (2011-01-01). "Heuristics to Improve Human Factors Performance in Aviation" (https://doi.
org/10.15394%2Fjaaer.2011.1640) . Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research. 20 (3).
doi:10.15394/jaaer.2011.1640 (https://doi.org/10.15394%2Fjaaer.2011.1640) . ISSN 2329-258X (htt
ps://search.worldcat.org/issn/2329-258X) .

69. Baron, J. (in preparation). Thinking and Deciding, 4th edition. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

70. Baron 1994, p. 372

71. de Meza D, Dawson C (January 24, 2018). "Wishful Thinking, Prudent Behavior: The Evolutionary
Origin of Optimism, Loss Aversion and Disappointment Aversion". SSRN 3108432 (https://papers.ssr
n.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3108432) .

72. Dawson C, Johnson SG (8 April 2021). "Dread Aversion and Economic Preferences". SSRN 3822640
(https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3822640) .

73. (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Richard Thaler coined the term "endowment effect."

74. (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Daniel Kahneman, together with Amos Tversky, coined
the term "loss aversion."

75. Hardman 2009, p. 137

76. Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193

77. Baron 1994, p. 382

78. Kruger J, Dunning D (December 1999). "Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing
one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments". Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 77 (6): 1121–1134. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.64.2655 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/sum
mary?doi=10.1.1.64.2655) . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.77.6.1121) . PMID 10626367 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367) . S2CID 2109278 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2109278) .

79. Van Boven L, Loewenstein G, Dunning D, Nordgren LF (2013). "Changing Places: A Dual Judgment
:
79. Van Boven L, Loewenstein G, Dunning D, Nordgren LF (2013). "Changing Places: A Dual Judgment
Model of Empathy Gaps in Emotional Perspective Taking" (https://web.archive.org/web/2016052820
0926/http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/VanBoven/Publications_files/VanBovenAdvancesVol48.p
df) (PDF). In Zanna MP, Olson JM (eds.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 48.
Academic Press. pp. 117–171. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-407188-9.00003-X (https://doi.org/10.1016%2
FB978-0-12-407188-9.00003-X) . ISBN 978-0-12-407188-9. Archived from the original (http://ps
ych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/VanBoven/Publications_files/VanBovenAdvancesVol48.pdf) (PDF) on
2016-05-28.

80. Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B (1977). "Do those who know more also know more about how much they
know?". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 20 (2): 159–183. doi:10.1016/0030-
5073(77)90001-0 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0030-5073%2877%2990001-0) .

81. Merkle EC (February 2009). "The disutility of the hard-easy effect in choice confidence" (https://do
i.org/10.3758%2FPBR.16.1.204) . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 16 (1): 204–213.
doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.204 (https://doi.org/10.3758%2FPBR.16.1.204) . PMID 19145033 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19145033) .

82. Juslin P, Winman A, Olsson H (April 2000). "Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence
research: a critical examination of the hard-easy effect". Psychological Review. 107 (2): 384–396.
doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.2.384 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295x.107.2.384) .
PMID 10789203 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10789203) .

83. Waytz A (26 January 2022). "2017 : What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely
known?" (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27117) . Edge.org. Retrieved 26 January 2022.

84. Rozenblit L, Keil F (September 2002). "The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of
explanatory depth" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3062901) . Cognitive Science.
26 (5). Wiley: 521–562. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15516709co
g2605_1) . PMC 3062901 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3062901) .
PMID 21442007 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21442007) .

85. Mills CM, Keil FC (January 2004). "Knowing the limits of one's understanding: the development of
an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 87 (1).
Elsevier BV: 1–32. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2003.09.003 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jecp.2003.09.003) .
PMID 14698687 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14698687) .

86. "Imposter Syndrome | Psychology Today" (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/imposter-sy

ndrome) .

87. "Objectivity illusion" (https://dictionary.apa.org/objectivity-illusion) . APA Dictionary of

Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. n.d. Retrieved 2022-01-15.

88. Klauer KC, Musch J, Naumer B (October 2000). "On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning".
Psychological Review. 107 (4): 852–884. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.852 (https://doi.org/10.103
7%2F0033-295X.107.4.852) . PMID 11089409 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11089409) .
:
 7%2F0033-295X.107.4.852) . PMID 11089409 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11089409) .

89. "Why do we prefer doing something to doing nothing" (https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/action-bia

s/) . The Decision Lab. 30 September 2021. Retrieved 30 November 2021.

90. Patt A, Zeckhauser R (July 2000). "Action Bias and Environmental Decisions" (https://link.springer.c
om/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026517309871) . Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 21: 45–72.
doi:10.1023/A:1026517309871 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1026517309871) .
S2CID 154662174 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154662174) . Retrieved 30 November
2021.

91. Gupta S (7 April 2021). "People add by default even when subtraction makes more sense" (https://w
ww.sciencenews.org/article/psychology-numbers-people-add-default-subtract-better) . Science
News. Retrieved 10 May 2021.

92. Adams GS, Converse BA, Hales AH, Klotz LE (April 2021). "People systematically overlook
subtractive changes". Nature. 592 (7853): 258–261. Bibcode:2021Natur.592..258A (https://ui.adsa
bs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Natur.592..258A) . doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y (https://doi.org/10.1
038%2Fs41586-021-03380-y) . PMID 33828317 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33828317) .
S2CID 233185662 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:233185662) .

93. Ackerman MS, ed. (2003). Sharing expertise beyond knowledge management (https://archive.org/d
etails/sharingexpertise0000unse/page/7) (online ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 7
(https://archive.org/details/sharingexpertise0000unse/page/7) . ISBN 978-0-262-01195-2.

94. Quartz SR, The State Of The World Isn't Nearly As Bad As You Think (https://edge.org/response-det
ail/26669) , Edge Foundation, Inc., retrieved 2016-02-17

95. Quoidbach J, Gilbert DT, Wilson TD (January 2013). "The end of history illusion" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20130113214951/http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/Quoidbach%20et%20al%202013.pdf)
(PDF). Science. 339 (6115): 96–98. Bibcode:2013Sci...339...96Q (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ab
s/2013Sci...339...96Q) . doi:10.1126/science.1229294 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.122929
4) . PMID 23288539 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23288539) . S2CID 39240210 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:39240210) . Archived from the original (http://www.wjh.harvard.ed
u/~dtg/Quoidbach%20et%20al%202013.pdf) (PDF) on 2013-01-13. "Young people, middle-aged
people, and older people all believed they had changed a lot in the past but would change relatively
little in the future."

96. Haring KS, Watanabe K, Velonaki M, Tossell CC, Finomore V (2018). "FFAB-The Form Function
Attribution Bias in Human Robot Interaction" (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FTCDS.2018.2851569) .
IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 10 (4): 843–851.
doi:10.1109/TCDS.2018.2851569 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FTCDS.2018.2851569) .
S2CID 54459747 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54459747) .

97. Kara-Yakoubian M (2022-07-29). "Psychologists uncover evidence of a fundamental pain bias" (htt
ps://www.psypost.org/2022/07/psychologists-uncover-evidence-of-a-fundamental-pain-bias-6361
:
 ps://www.psypost.org/2022/07/psychologists-uncover-evidence-of-a-fundamental-pain-bias-6361
3) . PsyPost. Retrieved 2022-11-27.

98. Prati A (2017). "Hedonic recall bias. Why you should not ask people how much they earn". Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization. 143: 78–97. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.002 (https://doi.org/10.
1016%2Fj.jebo.2017.09.002) .

99. Pohl RF (2004). "Hindsight Bias" (https://archive.org/details/cognitiveillusio0000unse/page/363) .

In Pohl RF (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement
and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 363–378 (https://archive.org/details/cognitiveillusio0
000unse/page/363) . ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398 (https://search.worldcat.org/ocl
c/55124398) .

100. Baron 1994, pp. 258–259

101. Danziger S, Levav J, Avnaim-Pesso L (April 2011). "Extraneous factors in judicial decisions" (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3084045) . Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America. 108 (17): 6889–6892. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.6889D (ht
tps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PNAS..108.6889D) . doi:10.1073/pnas.1018033108 (https://do
i.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1018033108) . PMC 3084045 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
MC3084045) . PMID 21482790 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21482790) .

102. Zaman J, De Peuter S, Van Diest I, Van den Bergh O, Vlaeyen JW (November 2016). "Interoceptive
cues predicting exteroceptive events" (https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/549865) .
International Journal of Psychophysiology. 109: 100–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.09.003 (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ijpsycho.2016.09.003) . PMID 27616473 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
27616473) .

103. Barrett LF, Simmons WK (July 2015). "Interoceptive predictions in the brain" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4731102) . Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 16 (7): 419–429.
doi:10.1038/nrn3950 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnrn3950) . PMC 4731102 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4731102) . PMID 26016744 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2601674
4) .

104. Damasio AR (October 1996). "The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the
prefrontal cortex". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological
Sciences. 351 (1346): 1413–1420. doi:10.1098/rstb.1996.0125 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frstb.199
6.0125) . PMID 8941953 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8941953) . S2CID 1841280 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1841280) .

105. Shafir E, Diamond P, Tversky A (2000). "Money Illusion". In Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds.). Choices,
values, and frames. Cambridge University Press. pp. 335–355. ISBN 978-0-521-62749-8.

106. Marcatto F, Cosulich A, Ferrante D (2015). "Once bitten, twice shy: Experienced regret and non-
adaptive choice switching" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476096) . PeerJ. 3:
e1035. doi:10.7717/peerj.1035 (https://doi.org/10.7717%2Fpeerj.1035) . PMC 4476096 (https://ww
:
 e1035. doi:10.7717/peerj.1035 (https://doi.org/10.7717%2Fpeerj.1035) . PMC 4476096 (https://ww
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476096) . PMID 26157618 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/26157618) .

107. Bornstein RF, Crave-Lemley C (2004). "Mere exposure effect" (https://archive.org/details/cognitiveil

lusio0000unse/page/215) . In Pohl RF (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and
Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 215–234 (https://arch
ive.org/details/cognitiveillusio0000unse/page/215) . ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398 (h
ttps://search.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398) .

108. Baron 1994, p. 386

109. Baron 1994, p. 44

110. Hardman 2009, p. 104

111. O'Donoghue T, Rabin M (1999). "Doing it now or later". American Economic Review. 89 (1): 103–
124. doi:10.1257/aer.89.1.103 (https://doi.org/10.1257%2Faer.89.1.103) . S2CID 5115877 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5115877) .

112. Balas B, Momsen JL (September 2014). Holt EA (ed.). "Attention "blinks" differently for plants and
animals" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152205) . CBE: Life Sciences Education.
13 (3): 437–443. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-05-0080 (https://doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.14-05-0080) .
PMC 4152205 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152205) . PMID 25185227 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25185227) .

113. Safi R, Browne GJ, Naini AJ (2021). "Mis-spending on information security measures: Theory and
experimental evidence". International Journal of Information Management. 57 (102291): 102291.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102291 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ijinfomgt.2020.102291) .
S2CID 232041220 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:232041220) .

114. Hsee CK, Hastie R (January 2006). "Decision and experience: why don't we choose what makes us
happy?" (http://maelko.typepad.com/DecisionAndExperience.pdf) (PDF). Trends in Cognitive
Sciences. 10 (1): 31–37. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.178.7054 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?
doi=10.1.1.178.7054) . doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.007 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tics.2005.11.00
7) . PMID 16318925 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16318925) . S2CID 12262319 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12262319) . Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2015042020531
5/http://maelko.typepad.com/DecisionAndExperience.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2015-04-20.

115. Trofimova I (October 1999). "An investigation of how people of different age, sex, and temperament
estimate the world". Psychological Reports. 85 (2): 533–552. doi:10.2466/pr0.1999.85.2.533 (http
s://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1999.85.2.533) . PMID 10611787 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/106
11787) . S2CID 8335544 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:8335544) .

116. Trofimova I (2014). "Observer bias: an interaction of temperament traits with biases in the semantic
perception of lexical material" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903487) . PLOS
:
 ONE. 9 (1): e85677. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...985677T (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PLoS
O...985677T) . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085677 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.008567
7) . PMC 3903487 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903487) . PMID 24475048 (
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24475048) .

117. Leman PJ, Cinnirella M (2007). "A major event has a major cause: Evidence for the role of heuristics
in reasoning about conspiracy theories" (https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/a-m
ajor-event-has-a-major-cause-evidence-for-the-role-of-heuristics-in-reasoning-about-conspiracy-
theories(2ad8342b-f5ca-4791-b988-ae70fbfdb4b3).html) . Social Psychological Review. 9 (2):
18–28. doi:10.53841/bpsspr.2007.9.2.18 (https://doi.org/10.53841%2Fbpsspr.2007.9.2.18) .
S2CID 245126866 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:245126866) .

118. Buckley T (2015). "Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?" (https://www.scientificam
erican.com/article/why-do-some-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/) . Scientific American
Mind. 26 (4): 72. doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0715-72a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fscientific
americanmind0715-72a) . Retrieved 26 July 2020.

119. "Use Cognitive Biases to Your Advantage, Institute for Management Consultants, #721, December
19, 2011" (https://web.archive.org/web/20201024151714/https://www.imcusa.org/blogpost/334056/1
36102/721-Use-Cognitive-Biases-to-Your-Advantage#:~:text=Recency%20Bias%20%2D%20givin
g%20greater%20importance,made%20has%20a%20slight%20advantage)) . Archived from the
original (https://www.imcusa.org/blogpost/334056/136102/721-Use-Cognitive-Biases-to-Your-Adva
ntage#:~:text=Recency%20Bias%20%2D%20giving%20greater%20importance,made%20has%20
a%20slight%20advantage)) on October 24, 2020. Retrieved April 15, 2021.

120. Fiedler K, Unkelbach C (2014-10-01). "Regressive Judgment: Implications of a Universal Property of

the Empirical World". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 23 (5): 361–367.
doi:10.1177/0963721414546330 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721414546330) . ISSN 0963-
7214 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0963-7214) . S2CID 146376950 (https://api.semanticschola
r.org/CorpusID:146376950) .

121. Kelemen D, Rottman J, Seston R (2013). "Professional Physical Scientists Display Tenacious
Teleological Tendencies: Purpose-Based Reasoning as a Cognitive Default". Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General. 142 (4): 1074–1083. doi:10.1037/a0030399 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0030
399) . PMID 23067062 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23067062) ..

122. Kelemen D, Rosset E (2009). "The Human Function Compunction: teleological explanation in
adults". Cognition. 111 (1): 138–143. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F
j.cognition.2009.01.001) . PMID 19200537 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19200537) .
S2CID 2569743 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2569743) .

123. "Unconscious Bias" (https://www.vanderbilt.edu/diversity/unconscious-bias/) . Vanderbilt

University. Retrieved 2020-11-09.

124. "Penn Psychologists Believe 'Unit Bias' Determines The Acceptable Amount To Eat" (https://www.sc
:
124. "Penn Psychologists Believe 'Unit Bias' Determines The Acceptable Amount To Eat" (https://www.sc
iencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051121163748.htm) . ScienceDaily (November 21, 2005)

125. Talboy A, Schneider S (2022-03-17). "Reference Dependence in Bayesian Reasoning: Value

Selection Bias, Congruence Effects, and Response Prompt Sensitivity" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/pmc/articles/PMC8970303) . Frontiers in Psychology. 13: 729285.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.729285 (https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2022.729285) . PMC 8970303
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8970303) . PMID 35369253 (https://pubmed.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/35369253) .

126. Talboy AN, Schneider SL (December 2018). "Focusing on what matters: Restructuring the
presentation of Bayesian reasoning problems". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 24 (4):
440–458. doi:10.1037/xap0000187 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fxap0000187) . PMID 30299128 (ht
tps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30299128) . S2CID 52943395 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:52943395) .

127. Milgram S (October 1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 67
(4): 371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0040525) . PMID 14049516 (htt
ps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14049516) . S2CID 18309531 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp
usID:18309531) .

128. Walker D, Vul E (January 2014). "Hierarchical encoding makes individuals in a group seem more
attractive". Psychological Science. 25 (1): 230–235. doi:10.1177/0956797613497969 (https://doi.or
g/10.1177%2F0956797613497969) . PMID 24163333 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2416333
3) . S2CID 16309135 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16309135) .

129. Baron 1994, p. 275

130. Sutherland 2007, pp. 138–139

131. Anderson KB, Graham LM (2007). "Hostile Attribution Bias". Encyclopedia of Social Psychology.
Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 446–447. doi:10.4135/9781412956253 (https://doi.org/10.4135%2F9781
412956253) . ISBN 978-1-4129-1670-7.

132. Rosset E (2008-09-01). "It's no accident: Our bias for intentional explanations". Cognition. 108 (3):
771–780. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cognition.2008.07.001) .
ISSN 0010-0277 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0010-0277) . PMID 18692779 (https://pubmed.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/18692779) . S2CID 16559459 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1655945
9) .

133. Kokkoris M (2020-01-16). "The Dark Side of Self-Control" (https://hbr.org/2020/01/the-dark-side-of

-self-control) . Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 17 January 2020.

134. Plous 1993, p. 185

135. Kuran T, Sunstein CR (1998). "Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation" (https://chicagounbound.u
chicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=public_law_and_legal_theory) . Stanford
:
 chicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=public_law_and_legal_theory) . Stanford
Law Review. 51 (4): 683–768. doi:10.2307/1229439 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1229439) .
JSTOR 1229439 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229439) . S2CID 3941373 (https://api.semanticsch
olar.org/CorpusID:3941373) .

136. Colman A (2003). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofpsyc00co

lm_0/page/77) . New York: Oxford University Press. p. 77 (https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofps
yc00colm_0/page/77) . ISBN 978-0-19-280632-1.

137. Ciccarelli S, White J (2014). Psychology (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-205-
97335-4.

138. Dalton D, Ortegren M (2011). "Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling
for the social desirability response bias". Journal of Business Ethics. 103 (1): 73–93.
doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0843-8 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10551-011-0843-8) .
S2CID 144155599 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144155599) .

139. McCornack S, Parks M (1986). "Deception Detection and Relationship Development: The Other Side
of Trust". Annals of the International Communication Association. 9: 377–389.
doi:10.1080/23808985.1986.11678616 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F23808985.1986.11678616) .

140. Levine T (2014). "Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A Theory of Human Deception and Deception
Detection". Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 33: 378–392.
doi:10.1177/0261927X14535916 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X14535916) .
S2CID 146916525 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:146916525) .

141. Plous 1993, p. 206

142. "Assumed similarity bias" (https://dictionary.apa.org/assumed-similarity-bias) . APA Dictionary of

Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. n.d. Retrieved 2022-01-15.

143. "Intellectual Precursors, Major Postulates, and Practical Relevance of System Justification Theory" (
https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv13qfw6w.6) , A Theory of System Justification, Harvard University
Press, pp. 49–69, 2020-07-14, doi:10.2307/j.ctv13qfw6w.6 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2Fj.ctv13qfw6
w.6) , S2CID 243130432 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:243130432) , retrieved
2023-12-05

144. Garcia SM, Song H, Tesser A (November 2010). "Tainted recommendations: The social comparison
bias". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 113 (2): 97–101.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2010.06.002) . ISSN 0749-
5978 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0749-5978) .
"The Social Comparison Bias – or why we recommend new candidates who don't compete with
our own strengths" (http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2010/10/social-comparison-bias-
or-why-we.html) . BPS Research Digest. 2010-10-28.

145. Forsyth DR (2009). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
:
146. Kruger J (August 1999). "Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric
nature of comparative ability judgments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (2): 221–
232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.221 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.77.2.221) .
PMID 10474208 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10474208) .

147. Payne BK, Cheng CM, Govorun O, Stewart BD (September 2005). "An inkblot for attitudes: affect
misattribution as implicit measurement". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 89 (3): 277–
293. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.392.4775 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.392.477
5) . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.89.3.277) .
PMID 16248714 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16248714) .

148. Schacter DL (2001). The Seven Sins of Memory. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

149. Schacter, Daniel Lawrence (March 1999). "The Seven Sins of Memory: Insights from psychology
and cognitive neuroscience" (https://semanticscholar.org/paper/379468e541ac77a984ef5bf8c69d7
0a4824473e5) . The American Psychologist. 54 (3): 182–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066X.54.3.182) . PMID 10199218 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/10199218) . S2CID 14882268 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14882268) .

150. Butera F, Levine JM, Vernet J (August 2009). "Influence without credit: How successful minorities
respond to social cryptomnesia". Coping with Minority Status. Cambridge University Press. pp. 311–
332. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804465.015 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fcbo9780511804465.015) .
ISBN 978-0-511-80446-5.

151. Lieberman DA (2011). Human Learning and Memory (https://books.google.com/books?id=mJsV-Vr8

Q6sC&pg=PA432) . Cambridge University Press. p. 432. ISBN 978-1-139-50253-5.

152. McDunn BA, Siddiqui AP, Brown JM (April 2014). "Seeking the boundary of boundary extension".
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 21 (2): 370–375. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0494-0 (https://doi.org/1
0.3758%2Fs13423-013-0494-0) . PMID 23921509 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2392150
9) . S2CID 2876131 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2876131) .

153. Mather M, Shafir E, Johnson MK (March 2000). "Misremembrance of options past: source
monitoring and choice" (http://www.matherlab.com/s/Matheretal2000.pdf) (PDF). Psychological
Science. 11 (2): 132–138. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00228 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9280.0022
8) . PMID 11273420 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11273420) . S2CID 2468289 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:2468289) . Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090117084058/
http://www.usc.edu/projects/matherlab/pdfs/Matheretal2000.pdf) (PDF) from the original on
2009-01-17.

154. Attneave F (August 1953). "Psychological probability as a function of experienced frequency".

Journal of Experimental Psychology. 46 (2): 81–86. doi:10.1037/h0057955 (https://doi.org/10.103
7%2Fh0057955) . PMID 13084849 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13084849) .

155. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1977). "Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of
:
155. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1977). "Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of
extreme confidence". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 3
(4): 552–564. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0096-1523.3.4.552) .
S2CID 54888532 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54888532) .

156. Cacioppo J (2002). Foundations in social neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 130–132.
ISBN 978-0-262-53195-5.

157. Cacciatore MA (April 2021). "Misinformation and public opinion of science and health: Approaches,
findings, and future directions" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8053916) .
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 118 (15):
e1912437117. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11812437C (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PNAS..118124
37C) . doi:10.1073/pnas.1912437117 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1912437117) .
PMC 8053916 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8053916) . PMID 33837143 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33837143) . p. 4: "The CIE refers to the tendency for information that
is initially presented as true, but later revealed to be false, to continue to affect memory and
reasoning"

158. Schmidt SR (July 1994). "Effects of humor on sentence memory" (https://web.archive.org/web/2016

0315061220/http://facstaff.uww.edu/eamond/road/Research/GenderJokes(DK1)/References%20an
d%20info/Effects%20of%20Humor%20on%20Sentence%20Memory.pdf) (PDF). Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 20 (4): 953–967. doi:10.1037/0278-
7393.20.4.953 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0278-7393.20.4.953) . PMID 8064254 (https://pubme
d.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8064254) . Archived from the original (http://facstaff.uww.edu/eamond/road/Re
search/GenderJokes%28DK1%29/References%20and%20info/Effects%20of%20Humor%20on%20
Sentence%20Memory.pdf) (PDF) on 2016-03-15. Retrieved 2015-04-19.

159. Schmidt SR (2003). "Life Is Pleasant – and Memory Helps to Keep It That Way!" (http://www.niu.ed
u/jskowronski/publications/WalkerSkowronskiThompson2003.pdf) (PDF). Review of General
Psychology. 7 (2): 203–210. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.203 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.
7.2.203) . S2CID 43179740 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:43179740) .

160. Fiedler K (1991). "The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of
distinctiveness-based illusory correlations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (1):
24–36. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.24 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.60.1.24) .

161. Koriat A, Goldsmith M, Pansky A (2000). "Toward a psychology of memory accuracy". Annual
Review of Psychology. 51 (1): 481–537. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481 (https://doi.org/10.114
6%2Fannurev.psych.51.1.481) . PMID 10751979 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10751979) .

162. Craik & Lockhart, 1972

163. Kinnell A, Dennis S (February 2011). "The list length effect in recognition memory: an analysis of
potential confounds" (https://doi.org/10.3758%2Fs13421-010-0007-6) . Memory & Cognition. 39
(2): 348–63. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0007-6 (https://doi.org/10.3758%2Fs13421-010-0007-6) .
:
 PMID 21264573 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21264573) .

164. Weiten W (2010). Psychology: Themes and Variations (https://books.google.com/books?id=sILajOhJ

pOsC&pg=PA338) . Cengage Learning. p. 338. ISBN 978-0-495-60197-5.

165. Haizlip J, May N, Schorling J, Williams A, Plews-Ogan M (September 2012). "Perspective: the
negativity bias, medical education, and the culture of academic medicine: why culture change is
hard" (https://doi.org/10.1097%2FACM.0b013e3182628f03) . Academic Medicine. 87 (9): 1205–
1209. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182628f03 (https://doi.org/10.1097%2FACM.0b013e3182628f0
3) . PMID 22836850 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22836850) .

166. Weiten W (2007). Psychology: Themes and Variations (https://books.google.com/books?id=Vv1vvlIE

XG0C&pg=PA260) . Cengage Learning. p. 260. ISBN 978-0-495-09303-9.

167. Slamecka NJ (April 1968). "An examination of trace storage in free recall". Journal of Experimental
Psychology. 76 (4): 504–513. doi:10.1037/h0025695 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0025695) .
PMID 5650563 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5650563) .

168. Shepard RN (1967). "Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures". Journal of Learning
and Verbal Behavior. 6: 156–163. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80067-7 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs
0022-5371%2867%2980067-7) .

169. McBride DM, Dosher BA (2002). "A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for
picture and word stimuli: a process dissociation analysis". Consciousness and Cognition. 11 (3):
423–460. doi:10.1016/s1053-8100(02)00007-7 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs1053-8100%2802%29
00007-7) . PMID 12435377 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12435377) . S2CID 2813053 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2813053) .

170. Defetyer MA, Russo R, McPartlin PL (2009). "The picture superiority effect in recognition memory: a
developmental study using the response signal procedure". Cognitive Development. 24 (3): 265–
273. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.05.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cogdev.2009.05.002) .

171. Whitehouse AJ, Maybery MT, Durkin K (2006). "The development of the picture-superiority effect".
British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 24 (4): 767–773. doi:10.1348/026151005X74153 (http
s://doi.org/10.1348%2F026151005X74153) .

172. Ally BA, Gold CA, Budson AE (January 2009). "The picture superiority effect in patients with
Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PM
C2763351) . Neuropsychologia. 47 (2): 595–598. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.010 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.neuropsychologia.2008.10.010) . PMC 2763351 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763351) . PMID 18992266 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1899226
6) .

173. Curran T, Doyle J (May 2011). "Picture superiority doubly dissociates the ERP correlates of
recollection and familiarity". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 23 (5): 1247–1262.
doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21464 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2Fjocn.2010.21464) . PMID 20350169 (http
:
 doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21464 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2Fjocn.2010.21464) . PMID 20350169 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20350169) . S2CID 6568038 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpus
ID:6568038) .

174. Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of
comparative ability judgments" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(2),

175. O'Brien EJ, Myers JL (1985). "When comprehension difficulty improves memory for text" (https://sc
holarworks.umass.edu/umop/vol9/iss1/7) . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition. 11 (1): 12–21. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.12 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0278-7393.1
1.1.12) . S2CID 199928680 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:199928680) .

176. Rubin, Wetzler & Nebes, 1986; Rubin, Rahhal & Poon, 1998

177. Liang, Tingchang; Lin, Zhao; Souma, Toshihiko (2021). "How Group Perception Affects What People
Share and How People Feel: The Role of Entitativity and Epistemic Trust in the "Saying-Is-Believing"
Effect" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8494462) . Frontiers in Psychology. 12:
728864. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.728864 (https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2021.728864) .
PMC 8494462 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8494462) . PMID 34630240 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34630240) .

178. Martin GN, Carlson NR, Buskist W (2007). Psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. pp. 309–310.
ISBN 978-0-273-71086-8.

179. Morton, Crowder & Prussin, 1971

180. Pitt I, Edwards AD (2003). Design of Speech-Based Devices: A Practical Guide (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=zQ10cPSz1lMC&pg=PA26) . Springer. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-85233-436-9.

181. Tversky A, Koehler DJ (1994). "Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective

probability" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170109023244/http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~dkoehler/
reprints/support_theory.pdf) (PDF). Psychological Review. 101 (4): 547–567. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.101.4.547 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295X.101.4.547) . Archived from the original (htt
p://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~dkoehler/reprints/support_theory.pdf) (PDF) on 2017-01-09.
Retrieved 2021-12-10.

182. Stetson C, Fiesta MP, Eagleman DM (December 2007). "Does time really slow down during a
frightening event?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2110887) . PLOS ONE. 2 (12):
e1295. Bibcode:2007PLoSO...2.1295S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PLoSO...2.1295S) .
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001295 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001295) .
PMC 2110887 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2110887) . PMID 18074019 (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18074019) .

183. Goldstein ED (2010-06-21). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday
Experience (https://books.google.com/books?id=9TUIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA231) . Cengage Learning.
p. 231. ISBN 978-1-133-00912-2.
:
184. "Not everyone is in such awe of the internet" (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/not-everyone-is-in-
such-awe-of-the-internet-6383970.html) . Evening Standard. 2011-03-23. Retrieved 28 October
2015.

185. Poppenk, Walia, Joanisse, Danckert, & Köhler, 2006

186. 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://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf02409636) . S2CID 145479042 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp
usID:145479042) .

References

Baron J (1994). Thinking and deciding (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
43732-5.

Hardman D (2009). Judgment and decision making: psychological perspectives. Wiley-Blackwell.

ISBN 978-1-4051-2398-3.

Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991). "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and
Status Quo Bias" (https://doi.org/10.1257%2Fjep.5.1.193) . The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5
(1): 193–206. doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193 (https://doi.org/10.1257%2Fjep.5.1.193) .

Plous S (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-
0-07-050477-6.

Sutherland S (2007). Irrationality. Pinter & Martin. ISBN 978-1-905177-07-3.

Further reading

Baron J (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-
521-65030-4.

Bishop MA, Trout JD (2004). Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516229-5.

Gilovich T (1993). How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New
York: The Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-911706-4.

Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-79679-8.

Greenwald AG (1980). "The Totalitarian Ego: Fabrication and Revision of Personal History" (http://facult
y.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Gwald_AmPsychologist_1980.OCR.pdf) (PDF). American Psychologist. 35
:
 (7): 603–618. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.7.603 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.35.7.603) .
ISSN 0003-066X (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0003-066X) .

Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982). "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases".
Science. 185 (4157). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 1124–1131.
Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974Sci...185.1124T) .
doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.185.4157.1124) . ISBN 978-0-
521-28414-1. PMID 17835457 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17835457) . S2CID 143452957 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143452957) .

Pohl RF (2017). Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory (2nd ed.).
London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-90341-8.

Schacter DL (March 1999). "The seven sins of memory. Insights from psychology and cognitive
neuroscience" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130513010136/http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~scanlab/pa
pers/2003_Schacter_SevenSinsSelf.pdf) (PDF). The American Psychologist. 54 (3): 182–203.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066X.54.3.182) . PMID 10199218
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10199218) . S2CID 14882268 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp
usID:14882268) . Archived from the original (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~scanlab/papers/2003_Sch
acter_SevenSinsSelf.pdf) (PDF) on May 13, 2013.

Tetlock PE (2005). Expert Political Judgment: how good is it? how can we know?. Princeton: Princeton
University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12302-8.

Virine L, Trumper M (2007). Project Decisions: The Art and Science. Vienna, VA: Management
Concepts. ISBN 978-1-56726-217-9.

External links

Media related to Memory biases at Wikimedia Commons

: