Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, and are often studied in psychology and
behavioral economics.[1]
Although the reality of these biases is confirmed by replicable research,[2][3] there are often controversies about how to classify these
biases or how to explain them.[4] Some are effects of 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.[6][7]
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
[8]
example of social skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person.
Although this research overwhelmingly involves human subjects, some findings that demonstrate bias have been found in non-human
animals as well. For example,hyperbolic discountinghas been observed in rats, pigeons, and monkeys.[9]
Contents
Decision-making, belief, and behavioral biases
Social biases
Memory errors and biases
Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases
Individual differences in decision making biases
Debiasing
See also
Footnotes
References
Anthropomorphism or The tendency to characterize animals, objects, and abstract concepts as possessing
personification human-like traits, emotions, and intentions.[14]
Base rate fallacy or Base The tendency to ignore base rate information (generic, general information) and focus
rate neglect [21]
on specific information (information only pertaining to a certain case).
An effect where someone's evaluation of thelogical strength of an argument is biased
Belief bias
by the believability of the conclusion.[22]
A person who has performed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for
Ben Franklin effect
that person than they would be if they hadreceived a favor from that person.[23]
The tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional
Berkson's paradox
probabilities.[24]
The tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify
Bias blind spot [25]
more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.
Conservatism (belief The tendency to revise one's belief insufficiently when presented with new
revision) evidence.[5][29][30]
The tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been
Continued influence effect corrected. Misinformation can still influence inferences one generates after a correction
has occurred.[31] cf. Backfire effect
The enhancement or reduction of a certain stimulus' perception when compared with a
Contrast effect
recently observed, contrasting object.[32]
Courtesy bias The tendency to give an opinion that is more socially correct than one's true opinion, so
as to avoid offending anyone.[33]
When better-informed people find it extremely dif
ficult to think about problems from the
Curse of knowledge
perspective of lesser-informed people.[34]
The predisposition to view the past favorably rosy
( retrospection) and future
Declinism
negatively.[35]
Preferences for either option A or B change in favor of option B when option C is
Decoy effect presented, which is completely dominated by option B (inferior in all respects) and
partially dominated by option A.[36]
Social biases
Most of these biases are labeled asattributional biases.
Name Description
The tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviors to overemphasize the
influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see
Actor-observer bias 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).
The tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure
Authority bias [94]
(unrelated to its content) and be more influenced by that opinion.
Illusion of asymmetric People perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of
insight them.[99]
When people view self-generated preferences as instead being caused by insightful,
Illusion of external agency
effective and benevolent agents.
People overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimate their
Illusion of transparency
ability to know others.
Overestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities,
Illusory superiority relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect", "better-than-average
effect", or "superiority bias".)[100]
The tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be
Ingroup bias
members of their own groups.
The tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing
Just-world hypothesis
them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s).
The tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on the
Moral luck
outcome of an event.
Naïve cynicism Expecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself.
The belief that we see reality as it really is – objectively and without bias; that the facts
Naïve realism are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don't
are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.
Outgroup homogeneity Individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than
bias members of other groups.[101]
The tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also
Self-serving bias manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way
beneficial to their interests (see alsogroup-serving bias).[102]
Known as the tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing
information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and
Shared information bias
less time and energy discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e.,
unshared information).[103]
The tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and
System justification political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged, sometimes
even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. (See also status quo bias.)
The tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of
Trait ascription bias
personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
Similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an
Ultimate attribution error
internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.
Primacy effect, recency That items near the end of a sequence are the easiest to recall, followed by the items at
effect & serial position the beginning of a sequence; items in the middle are the least likely to be
effect remembered.[121]
That information that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processed with
Processing difficulty effect
more difficulty) is more easily remembered.[122]
The recalling of more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than
Reminiscence bump
personal events from other lifetime periods.[123]
Rosy retrospection The remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.
That memories relating to the self are better recalled than similar information relating to
Self-relevance effect
others.
Prospect theory
Mental accounting
Adaptive bias – basing decisions on limited information and biasing them based on the costs of being wrong
Attribute substitution – making a complex, difficult judgment by unconsciously substituting it by an easier
judgment[132]
Attribution theory
Salience
Naïve realism
Cognitive dissonance, and related:
Impression management
Self-perception theory
Heuristics in judgment and decision making, including:
Availability heuristic – estimating what is more likely by what is more available in memory
, which is biased toward
vivid, unusual, or emotionally charged examples [65]
[65]
Representativeness heuristic– judging probabilities on the basis of resemblance
[133]
Affect heuristic – basing a decision on an emotional reaction rather than a calculation of risks and benefits
Some theories of emotion such as:
Debiasing
Debiasing is the reduction of biases in judgment and decision making through incentives, nudges, and training. Cognitive bias
mitigation and cognitive bias modification are forms of debiasing specifically applicable to cognitive biases and their effects.
Reference class forecasting is a method for systematically debiasing estimates and decisions, based on what Daniel Kahneman has
dubbed the outside view.
See also
Affective forecasting
Anecdotal evidence
Apophenia
Attribution (psychology)
Black swan theory
Chronostasis
Cognitive distortion
Defence mechanisms
Dysrationalia
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt
Feedback
Impostor syndrome
List of common misconceptions
List of fallacies
List of maladaptive schemas
List of memory biases
List of psychological effects
List of topics related to public relations and propaganda
Lists of thinking-related topics
Media bias
Mind projection fallacy
Motivated reasoning
Pollyanna principle
Positive feedback
Prevalence effect
Propaganda
Publication bias
Recall bias
Self-handicapping
Systematic bias
Footnotes
1. Haselton, M. G.; Nettle, D. & Andrews, P
. W. (2005). The evolution of cognitive bias(http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/com
m/haselton/papers/downloads/handbookevpsych.pdf)(PDF). In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary
Psychology: Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp. 724–746.
2. "Cognitive Bias – Association for Psychological Science"(https://www.psychologicalscience.org/tag/cognitive-bias).
www.psychologicalscience.org. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
3. Thomas, Oliver (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(http
s://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11301-018-0135-9). ISSN 2198-1620 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2198-1620).
4. Dougherty, M. R. P.; Gettys, C. F.; Ogden, E. E. (1999)."MINERVA-DM: A memory processes model for judgments
of likelihood" (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/psyc/dougherty/PDF%20articles/Dougherty,Gettys&Ogden,1999.pdf)(PDF).
Psychological Review. 106 (1): 180–209. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.180(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295x.1
06.1.180).
5. Martin Hilbert (2012). "Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: Hownoisy information processing can bias human
decision making" (http://www.martinhilbert.net/HilbertPsychBull.pdf) (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 138 (2): 211–237.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.432.8763 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.432.8763) .
doi:10.1037/a0025940 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0025940). PMID 22122235 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm
ed/22122235). Lay summary (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-27261-001) .
6. Maccoun, Robert J. (1998)."Biases in the interpretation and use of research results"(http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~
maccoun/MacCoun_AnnualReview98.pdf)(PDF). Annual Review of Psychology. 49 (1): 259–87.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.49.1.259). PMID 15012470 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15012470).
7. Nickerson, Raymond S.(1998). "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises"(http://psy2.ucsd.ed
u/~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)
. ISSN 1089-2680 (https://www.world
cat.org/issn/1089-2680).
8. Dardenne, Benoit; Leyens, Jacques-Philippe (1995)."Confirmation Bias as a Social Skill"(http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handl
e/2268/28639). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21 (11): 1229–1239. doi:10.1177/01461672952111011
(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01461672952111011) . ISSN 1552-7433 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1552-7433).
9. Alexander, William H.; Brown, Joshua W. (1 June 2010). "Hyperbolically Discounted Temporal Difference Learning"
(https://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 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20100071).
10. Baron 1994, p. 372
11. Zhang, Yu; Lewis, Mark; Pellon, Michael; Coleman, Phillip (2007). "A Preliminary Research on Modeling Cognitive
Agents for Social Environments in Multi-Agent Systems"(http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/2007/FS-07-04/
FS07-04-017.pdf) (PDF): 116–123.
12. Iverson, Grant; Brooks, Brian; Holdnack, James (2008). "Misdiagnosis of Cognitive Impairment in Forensic
Neuropsychology". In Heilbronner, Robert L. Neuropsychology in the Courtroom: Expert Analysis of Reports and
Testimony. New York: Guilford Press. p. 248.ISBN 9781593856342.
13. Coley, John D; Tanner, Kimberly D (2012). "Common Origins of Diverse Misconceptions: Cognitive Principles and
the Development of Biology Thinking"(http://www.lifescied.org/content/11/3/209.full). CBE-Life Sciences Education.
11 (3): 209–215. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-06-0074(https://doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.12-06-0074). ISSN 1931-7913 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/1931-7913). PMC 3433289 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433289).
PMID 22949417 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22949417).
14. "The Real Reason We Dress Pets Like People" (http://www.livescience.com/6141-real-reason-dress-pets-people.ht
ml). LiveScience.com. Retrieved 2015-11-16.
15. Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (2007). "Threat-related
attentional bias in anxious and non-anxious individuals: A meta-analytic study
." Psychological Bulletin.
16. Goddard, Kate; Roudsari, Abdul; Wyatt, Jeremy C. (2011). "Automation Bias – A Hidden Issue for Clinical Decision
Support System Use (https://books.google.com/books?id=NsbaN_fXRe4C&pg=P A17)." International Perspectives in
Health Informatics. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. IOS Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-709-3-17(htt
ps://doi.org/10.3233%2F978-1-60750-709-3-17)
17. Schwarz, N.; Bless, Herbert; Strack, Fritz; Klumpp, G.; Rittenauer-Schatka, Helga; Simons, Annette (1991). "Ease of
Retrieval as Information: Another Look at the A vailability Heuristic" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140209175640/htt
p://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.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.61.2.195) .
Archived from the original (http://osil.psy.ua.edu:16080/~Rosanna/Soc_Inf/week4/availability.pdf) (PDF) on 9
February 2014. Retrieved 19 Oct 2014.
18. Kuran, Timur; Cass R Sunstein (1998)."Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation"(https://chicagounbound.uchicag
o.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/1229
439).
19. Sanna, Lawrence J.; Schwarz, Norbert; Stocker , Shevaun L. (2002). "When debiasing backfires: Accessible content
and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight"(http://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/acc_invest_march2010/sp
eakers/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/viewdoc/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://www.wo
rldcat.org/issn/0278-7393).
20. Colman, Andrew (2003).Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 77.ISBN 978-0-19-
280632-1.
21. Baron 1994, pp. 224–228
22. Klauer, K. C.; Musch, J; Naumer, B (2000). "On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning".Psychological Review. 107 (4):
852–884. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.852(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295X.107.4.852) . PMID 11089409 (ht
tps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11089409).
23. "Harness the power of the 'Ben Franklin Effect' to get someone to like you"(https://www.businessinsider.in/Harness-t
he-power-of-the-Ben-Franklin-Effect-to-get-someone-to-like-you/articleshow/55757370.cms) . Business Insider.
Retrieved 2018-10-10.
24. "Berkson's Paradox | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki"(https://brilliant.org/wiki/berksons-paradox/). brilliant.org.
Retrieved 2018-10-10.
25. Pronin, Emily; Matthew B. Kugler (July 2007). "Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a
source of the bias blind spot".Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 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 (https://www.worldc
at.org/issn/0022-1031).
26. Mather, M.; Shafir, E.; Johnson, M.K. (2000)."Misrememberance of options past: Source monitoring and choice"(htt
p://www.matherlab.com/s/Matheretal2000.pdf) (PDF). Psychological Science. 11 (2): 132–138. doi:10.1111/1467-
9280.00228 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9280.00228) . PMID 11273420 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
11273420). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090117084058/http://www .usc.edu/projects/matherlab/pdfs/Mat
heretal2000.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2009-01-17.
27. Oswald, Margit E.; Grosjean, Stefan (2004). "Confirmation Bias".In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook
on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory . Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 79–96.ISBN 978-1-
84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398).
28. Fisk, John E. (2004). "Conjunction fallacy".In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and
Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 23–42.ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4.
OCLC 55124398 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398).
29. DuCharme, W. M. (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%2Fh0029546). hdl:2060/19700009379 (h
ttps://hdl.handle.net/2060%2F19700009379).
30. Edwards, W. (1968). "Conservatism in humaninformation processing".In Kleinmuntz, B. Formal representation of
human judgment. New York: Wiley. pp. 17–52.
31. Johnson, Hollyn M.; Colleen M. Seifert (November 1994). "Sources of the continued influence fect:
ef When
misinformation in memory affects later inferences". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory
, and
Cognition. 20 (6): 1420–1436. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0278-7393.20.6.1420).
32. Plous 1993, pp. 38–41
33. Ciccarelli, Saundra; White, J. (2014).Psychology (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. p. 62.ISBN 978-0205973354.
34. Ackerman, Mark S., ed. (2003).Sharing expertise beyond knowledge management(online ed.). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 7.ISBN 9780262011952.
35. Steven R. Quartz, The State Of The World Isn't Nearly As Bad As Y
ou Think (https://edge.org/response-detail/2666
9), Edge Foundation, Inc., retrieved 2016-02-17
36. FutureLearn. "Evolution and cognitive biases: the decoy ef
fect" (https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/complexity-and
-uncertainty/0/steps/1882). FutureLearn. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
37. "The Default Effect: How to Leverage Bias and Influence Behavior" (https://www.influenceatwork.com/inside-influenc
e-report/how-to-use-and-improve-actions-through-enhanced-defaults/) . Influence at Work. 2012-01-11. Retrieved
2018-10-10.
38. Why We Spend Coins Faster Than Bills(https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104063298)by
Chana Joffe-Walt. All Things Considered, 12 May 2009.
39. "Top 50 List of Cognitive Biases in Trading" (https://capital.com/top-50-cognitive-biases-list)
. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
40. Hsee, Christopher K.; Zhang, Jiao (2004). "Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86 (5): 680–695. 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%2F0022-35
14.86.5.680). PMID 15161394 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15161394).
41. [1] (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3108432)
42. Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (6): 1121–34.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.64.2655 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.64.2655) . doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.77.6.1121 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.77.6.1121) . PMID 10626367 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p
ubmed/10626367).
43. Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Af
fective Episodes (http://pages.ucsd.edu/~nchristenfeld/Happines
s_Readings_files/Class%209%20-%20Fredrickson%201993.pdf)| Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
44. "Understanding and Mastering the Empathy Gap"(https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201602/und
erstanding-and-mastering-the-empathy-gap).
45. (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Richard Thaler coined the term "endowment ef
fect."
46. 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). Bibcode:2006AmJPh..74..578J (http://adsabs.harvar
d.edu/abs/2006AmJPh..74..578J). doi:10.1119/1.2186333 (https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.2186333).
47. Kahneman, Daniel; Alan B. Krueger; David Schkade; Norbert Schwarz; Arthur A. Stone (2006-06-30). "Would you be
happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion"(http://www.morgenkommichspaeterrein.de/ressources/download/125
krueger.pdf) (PDF). Science. 312 (5782): 1908–10. Bibcode:2006Sci...312.1908K (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20
06Sci...312.1908K). CiteSeerX 10.1.1.373.2683 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.373.268
3). doi:10.1126/science.1129688(https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1129688) . PMID 16809528 (https://www.ncbi.n
lm.nih.gov/pubmed/16809528).
48. "The Barnum Demonstration"(http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/barnum_demo.htm)
.
psych.fullerton.edu. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
49. Haring, Kerstin; Katsumi Watanabe; Mari Velonaki; Chad C. Tossell; Victor Finomore (2018). "FFAB-The Form
Function Attribution Bias in Human Robot Interaction".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) .
50. "Top 50 List of Cognitive Biases in Trading" (https://capital.com/top-50-cognitive-biases-list)
. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
51. Zwicky, Arnold (2005-08-07). "Just Between Dr. Language and I" (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archive
s/002386.html). Language Log.
52. "What's the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon?"(https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/ba
ader-meinhof-phenomenon.htm). 20 March 2015. Retrieved 15 April 2018.
53. "The Psychology Guide: What Does Functional Fixedness Mean?"(https://psychologenie.com/what-does-functional-f
ixedness-mean-in-psychology). PsycholoGenie. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
54. Staff, Investopedia (2006-10-29)."Gambler's Fallacy/Monte Carlo Fallacy"(https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/ga
mblersfallacy.asp). Investopedia. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
55. 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) .
56. Merkle, E. C. (2009). "The disutility of the hard-easy ef
fect in choice confidence".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://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19145033).
57. Juslin, P; Winman, A.; Olsson, H. (2000). "Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: a critical
examination of the hard-easy effect". Psychological Review. 107 (2): 384–396. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.2.384(htt
ps://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295x.107.2.384) .
58. Pohl, Rüdiger F. (2004). "Hindsight Bias".In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and
Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 363–378.ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4.
OCLC 55124398 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398).
59. Anderson, Kathryn B.; Graham, Loranel M. (2007),"Hostile Attribution Bias"(http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/social
psychology/n262.xml), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, SAGE Publications, Inc., pp. 446–447, retrieved
2018-10-10
60. Laibson, David (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) .
61. Kogut, Tehila; Ritov, Ilana (2005). "The 'Identified Victim' Effect: An Identified Group, or Just a Single Individual?"(htt
p://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msiritov/KogutRitovIdentified.pdf)(PDF). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 18 (3):
157–167. doi:10.1002/bdm.492 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fbdm.492). Retrieved August 15, 2013.
62. The “IKEA Effect”: When Labor Leads to Love (https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-091.pdf) |
Harvard Business School
63. Thompson, Suzanne C. (1999). "Illusions of Control: How W e Overestimate Our Personal Influence".Current
Directions in Psychological Science. 8 (6): 187–190. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00044(https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467
-8721.00044). ISSN 0963-7214 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0963-7214). JSTOR 20182602 (https://www.jstor.org/
stable/20182602).
64. Dierkes, Meinolf; Antal, Ariane Berthoin; Child, John; Ikujiro Nonaka (2003).
Handbook of Organizational Learning
and Knowledge (https://books.google.com/books?id=JRd7RZzzw_wC&pg=P A22). Oxford University Press. p. 22.
ISBN 978-0-19-829582-2. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
65. Tversky, Amos; Daniel Kahneman (September 27, 1974). "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases".
Science. 185 (4157): 1124–1131. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974Sci...185.1124
T). doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124(https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.185.4157.1124) . PMID 17835457 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17835457).
66. 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) .
67. Sanna, Lawrence J.; Schwarz, Norbert (2004). "Integrating emporal
T 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://d
oi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0956-7976.2004.00704.x) . PMID 15200632 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15200632).
68. Baron 1994, pp. 258–259
69. (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Daniel Kahneman, together with Amos Tversky
, coined the term "loss
aversion."
70. Bornstein, Robert F.; Crave-Lemley, Catherine (2004). "Mere exposure effect". In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions:
A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory . Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 215–
234. ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55124398).
71. Shafir, Eldar; Diamond, Peter; Tversky, Amos (2000). "Money Illusion".In Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos.
Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press. pp. 335–355.ISBN 978-0-521-62749-8.
72. Haizlip, Julie; et al. (2012). "Perspective: The Negativity Bias, Medical Education, and the Culture of Academic
Medicine: Why Culture Change Is Hard"(http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2012/09000/Perspective
___The_Negativity_Bias,_Medical.19.aspx). Academic Medicine. 87 (9): 1205–1209.
doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182628f03(https://doi.org/10.1097%2FACM.0b013e3182628f03). PMID 22836850 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22836850). Retrieved October 3, 2012.
73. Trofimova, IN (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(http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PLoSO...985677T) .
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085677(https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0085677) . PMC 3903487 (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903487). PMID 24475048 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24475048).
74. Sutherland 2007, pp. 138–139
75. Baron 1994, p. 353
76. Baron 1994, p. 386
77. Baron 1994, p. 44
78. Hardman 2009, p. 104
79. Adams, P. A.; Adams, J. K. (1960). "Confidence in the recognition and reproduction of words dif
ficult to spell". The
American Journal of Psychology. 73 (4): 544–552. doi:10.2307/1419942 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1419942).
JSTOR 1419942 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1419942). PMID 13681411 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/136
81411).
80. Hoffrage, Ulrich (2004). "Overconfidence".In Rüdiger Pohl. Cognitive Illusions: a handbook on fallacies and biases
in thinking, judgement and memory. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4.
81. Sutherland 2007, pp. 172–178
82. Hsee, Christopher K.; Hastie, Reid (2006)."Decision and experience: why don't we choose what makes us happy?"
(https://web.archive.org/web/20150420205315/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/summ
ary?doi=10.1.1.178.7054). doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.007(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tics.2005.11.007) .
PMID 16318925 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16318925). Archived from the original on 2015-04-20.
83. Trofimova, IN (1999). "How people of different age sex and temperament estimate the wo
rld". Psychological
Reports. 85/2 (2): 533–552. doi:10.2466/pr0.1999.85.2.533(https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1999.85.2.533).
PMID 10611787 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10611787).
84. Hardman 2009, p. 137
85. Attneave, F. (1953). "Psychological probability as a function of experienced frequency".Journal of Experimental
Psychology. 46 (2): 81–86. doi:10.1037/h0057955 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0057955). PMID 13084849 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13084849).
86. 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) .
87. Garcia, Stephen M.; Song, Hyunjin; Tesser, Abraham (November 2010). "Tainted recommendations: The social
comparison bias". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes . 113 (2): 97–101.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.002(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2010.06.002) . ISSN 0749-5978 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/issn/0749-5978). Lay summary (http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2010/10/social-comparison-bias-
or-why-we.html) – BPS Research Digest (2010-10-30).
88. 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.o
rg/10.1007%2Fs10551-011-0843-8).
89. Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193
90. Baron 1994, p. 382
91. Baron, J. (in preparation).Thinking and Deciding, 4th edition. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.
92. Forsyth, Donelson R (2009).Group Dynamics (https://books.google.com/books?id=RsMNiobZojIC&pg=P
A317) (5th
ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 317.ISBN 978-0-495-59952-4.
93. "Penn Psychologists Believe 'Unit Bias' Determines The Acceptable AmountoTEat" (https://www.sciencedaily.com/r
eleases/2005/11/051121163748.htm). ScienceDaily (November 21, 2005)
94. Milgram, Stanley (Oct 1963). "Behavioral Study of obedience".The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
. 67
(4).
95. Walker, Drew; Vul, Edward (2013-10-25)."Hierarchical Encoding Makes Individuals in a Group Seem More
Attractive" (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/25/0956797613497969)
. Psychological Science. 25 (11):
230–235. doi:10.1177/0956797613497969(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797613497969) . PMID 24163333 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24163333).
96. Marks, Gary; Miller, Norman (1987). "Ten years of research on the false-consensus ef fect: An empirical and
theoretical review". Psychological Bulletin. 102 (1): 72–90. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72(https://doi.org/10.103
7%2F0033-2909.102.1.72).
97. "False Uniqueness Bias (SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY) - IResearchNet"(http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psych
ology/social-cognition/false-uniqueness-bias/)
.
98. Baron 1994, p. 275
99. Pronin, E.; Kruger, J.; Savitsky, K.; Ross, L. (2001). "You don't know me, but I know you: the illusion of asymmetric
insight". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (4): 639–656. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.639(https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.81.4.639). PMID 11642351 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11642351).
100. Hoorens, Vera (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/10.1080%2F14792779343000040) .
101. Plous 2006, p. 206
102. Plous 2006, p. 185
103. Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
104. Kruger, J. (1999). "Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative
ability judgments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (2): 221–32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.221(h
ttps://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.77.2.221) . PMID 10474208 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10474208).
105. Schacter, Daniel L. (1999). "The Seven Sinsof Memory: Insights From Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience".
American Psychologist. 54 (3): 182–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066X.5
4.3.182). PMID 10199218 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10199218).
106. Cacioppo, John (2002).Foundations in social neuroscience. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp. 130–132.ISBN 978-
0262531955.
107. Walker, W. Richard; John J. Skowronski; Charles P. Thompson (1994). "Effects of Humor on Sentence Memory"(htt
p://facstaff.uww.edu/eamond/road/Research/GenderJokes%28DK1%29/References%20and%20info/Ef fects%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) .
Retrieved 2015-04-19.
108. Schmidt, Stephen R. (2003)."Life Is Pleasant—and Memory Helps to Keep It That W
ay!" (http://www.niu.edu/jskowro
nski/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).
109. Koriat, A.; M. Goldsmith; A. Pansky (2000). "T
oward a Psychology of Memory Accuracy".Annual Review of
Psychology. 51 (1): 481–537. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.51.1.4
81). PMID 10751979 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10751979).
110. Craik & Lockhart, 1972
111. Kinnell, Angela; Dennis, S. (2011). "The list length ef
fect in recognition memory: an analysis of potential confounds".
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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264573).
112. Wayne Weiten (2010). Psychology: Themes and Variations: Themes and Variations (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=sILajOhJpOsC&pg=PA338). Cengage Learning. p. 338.ISBN 978-0-495-60197-5.
113. Wayne Weiten (2007). Psychology: Themes and Variations: Themes And Variations (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=Vv1vvlIEXG0C&pg=PA260). Cengage Learning. p. 260.ISBN 978-0-495-09303-9.
114. Slamecka NJ (1968). "An examination of trace storage in free recall".J Exp Psychol. 76 (4): 504–13.
doi:10.1037/h0025695 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0025695). PMID 5650563 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme
d/5650563).
115. Shepard, R.N. (1967). "Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures".
Journal of Learning and Verbal
Behavior. 6: 156–163. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80067-7(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0022-5371%2867%298006
7-7).
116. McBride, D. M.; Dosher, B.A. (2002). "A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for picture and
word stimuli: a process dissociation analysis".Consciousness and Cognition. 11 (3): 423–460. doi:10.1016/s1053-
8100(02)00007-7 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs1053-8100%2802%2900007-7) .
117. Defetyer, M. A.; Russo, R.; McPartlin, P. L. (2009). "The picture superiority effect in recognition memory: a
developmental study using the response signal procedure".Cognitive Development. 24 (3): 265–273.
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.05.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cogdev.2009.05.002).
118. Whitehouse, A. J.; Maybery, M.T.; Durkin, K. (2006). "The development of the picture-supe
riority effect". British
Journal of Developmental Psychology. 24 (4): 767–773. doi:10.1348/026151005X74153(https://doi.org/10.1348%2F
026151005X74153).
119. Ally, B. A.; Gold, C. A.; Budson, A. E. (2009)."The picture superiority effect in patients with Alzheimer's disease and
mild cognitive impairment"(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763351). Neuropsychologia. 47 (2):
595–598. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.010(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.neuropsychologia.2008.10.010) .
PMC 2763351 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763351). PMID 18992266 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/18992266).
120. Curran, T.; Doyle, J. (2011). "Picture superiority doubly dissociates the ERP correlates of recollection and familiarity".
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 23 (5): 1247–1262. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21464(https://doi.org/10.1162%2Fjoc
n.2010.21464). PMID 20350169 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20350169).
121. Martin, G. Neil; Neil R. Carlson; William Buskist (2007).Psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. pp. 309–310.
ISBN 978-0-273-71086-8.
122. O'Brien, Edward J.; Myers, Jerome L. (1985). "When comprehension dif ficulty improves memory for text".Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory , and Cognition. 11 (1): 12–21. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.12(https://d
oi.org/10.1037%2F0278-7393.11.1.12).
123. Rubin, Wetzler & Nebes, 1986; Rubin, Rahhal & Poon, 1998
124. David A. Lieberman (8 December 2011).Human Learning and Memory(https://books.google.com/books?id=mJsV
-V
r8Q6sC&pg=PA432). Cambridge University Press. p. 432.ISBN 978-1-139-50253-5.
125. Morton, Crowder & Prussin, 1971
126. Ian Pitt; Alistair D. N. Edwards (2003).Design of Speech-Based Devices: A Practical Guide(https://books.google.co
m/books?id=zQ10cPSz1lMC&pg=PA26). Springer. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-85233-436-9.
127. Steton, Chess; et al. (12 December 2017)."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(http://adsa
bs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PLoSO...2.1295S). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001295(https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.p
one.0001295). PMC 2110887 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2110887). PMID 18074019 (https://ww
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18074019).
128. E. Bruce Goldstein (2010-06-21).Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience
(http
s://books.google.com/books?id=9TUIAAAAQBAJ&pg=P A231). Cengage Learning. p. 231.ISBN 978-1-133-00912-2.
129. "Not everyone is in such awe of the internet"(https://www.standard.co.uk/news/not-everyone-is-in-such-awe-of-the-i
nternet-6383970.html). Evening Standard. Evening Standard. 2011-03-23. Retrieved 28 October 2015.
130. Poppenk, Walia, Joanisse, Danckert, & Köhler, 2006
131. Von Restorff, H (1933). "Über die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld (The fectsef of field formation in the
trace field)" ". Psychological Research. 18 (1): 299–342. doi:10.1007/bf02409636 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf0240
9636).
132. Kahneman, Daniel; Shane Frederick (2002). "Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive
Judgment". In Thomas Gilovich; Dale Griffin; Daniel Kahneman. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive
Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 49–81.ISBN 978-0-521-79679-8. OCLC 47364085 (https://
www.worldcat.org/oclc/47364085).
133. Slovic, Paul; Melissa Finucane; Ellen Peters; Donald G. MacGregor (2002). "The Af
fect Heuristic". In Thomas
Gilovich; Dale Griffin; Daniel Kahneman.Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge
University Press. pp. 397–420.ISBN 978-0-521-79679-8.
134. Scopelliti, Irene; Morewedge, Carey K.; McCormick, Erin; Min, H. Lauren; Lebrecht, Sophie; Kassam, Karim S.
(2015-04-24). "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences". Management Science. 61 (10): 2468–
2486. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2096(https://doi.org/10.1287%2Fmnsc.2014.2096) .
135. Morewedge, Carey K.; Yoon, Haewon; Scopelliti, Irene; Symborski, Carl W.; Korris, James H.; Kassam, Karim S.
(2015-10-01). "Debiasing Decisions Improved Decision Making With a Single raining
T Intervention" (http://bbs.sagep
ub.com/content/2/1/129). Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
. 2 (1): 129–140.
doi:10.1177/2372732215600886(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2372732215600886) . ISSN 2372-7322 (https://www.wo
rldcat.org/issn/2372-7322).
References
Baron, Jonathan (1994).Thinking and deciding (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-0-521-43732-5.
Baron, Jonathan (2000).Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
65030-4.
Bishop, Michael A.; Trout, J. D. (2004). Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment
. New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516229-5.
Gilovich, Thomas (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, Thomas; Griffin, Dale; Kahneman, Daniel (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive
judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-0-521-79679-8.
Greenwald, Anthony G.(1980). "The Totalitarian Ego: Fabrication and Revision of Personal History"(PDF).
American Psychologist. 35 (7): 603–618. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.7.603. ISSN 0003-066X.
Hardman, David (2009).Judgment and decision making: psychological perspectives
. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-
4051-2398-3.
Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; Tversky
, Amos (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-0-521-28414-1.
Kahneman, Daniel; Knetsch, Jack L.; Thaler, Richard H. (1991). "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion,
and Status Quo Bias" (PDF). The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5 (1): 193–206. doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193.
Archived from the original (PDF) on November 24, 2012.
Plous, Scott (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making
. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-
050477-6.
Pohl, Rüdiger F. (2017). Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory
(2nd ed.).
London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-90341-8.
Schacter, Daniel L. (1999). "The Seven Sins of Memory: Insights From Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience"
(PDF). American Psychologist. 54 (3): 182–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182. ISSN 0003-066X.
PMID 10199218. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 13, 2013.
Sutherland, Stuart (2007).Irrationality. Pinter & Martin. ISBN 978-1-905177-07-3.
Tetlock, Philip E. (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.
Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.