diff --git a/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs index d8f890b0..54ec0f51 100644 --- a/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs +++ b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs @@ -4505,17 +4505,556 @@ public static class BiasCatalog Some individuals are naturally high in reactance, a personality characteristic called trait reactance. """, - Related = [], + Related = [ + new Guid("a9c7faa7-2368-4be5-9eda-a37ffd8f7ab1"), // REVERSE_PSYCHOLOGY + ], Links = [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)", ], }; + + private static readonly Bias REVERSE_PSYCHOLOGY = new() + { + Id = new Guid("a9c7faa7-2368-4be5-9eda-a37ffd8f7ab1"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Reverse Psychology + Reverse psychology is a technique involving the assertion of a belief or behavior that is opposite to the one desired, with the expectation + that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what is actually desired. This technique relies on the psychological + phenomenon of reactance, in which a person has a negative emotional reaction to being persuaded, and thus chooses the option which is being + advocated against. This may work especially well on a person who is resistant by nature, while direct requests work best for people who are + compliant. The one being manipulated is usually unaware of what is really going on. + """, + + Related = [ + new Guid("d3c2cb4b-ec29-4cf3-a485-9a98e9f1f223"), // REACTANCE + ], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_psychology", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias SYSTEM_JUSTIFICATION = new() + { + Id = new Guid("755c8f9e-b172-4ff7-9797-9cc130bf4939"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # System Justification + System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically + palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, + that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous + to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological + support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus + resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, + legitimate, and even desirable. + + According to system justification theory, people desire not only to hold favorable attitudes about themselves + (ego-justification) and the groups to which they belong (group-justification), but also to hold positive attitudes + about the overarching social structure in which they are entwined and find themselves obligated to (system-justification). + This system-justifying motive sometimes produces the phenomenon known as out-group favoritism, an acceptance of inferiority + among low-status groups and a positive image of relatively higher status groups. Thus, the notion that individuals are + simultaneously supporters and victims of the system-instilled norms is a central idea in system justification theory. + Additionally, the passive ease of supporting the current structure, when compared to the potential price (material, + social, psychological) of acting out against the status quo, leads to a shared environment in which the existing social, + economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred. Alternatives to the status quo tend to be disparaged, and + inequality tends to perpetuate. + """, + + Related = [ + new Guid("b9e05a25-ac09-407d-8aee-f54a04decf0b"), // STATUS_QUO_BIAS + new Guid("b1cc861b-f445-450b-9bdf-e9d222abdb4e"), // IN_GROUP_FAVORITISM + ], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias BELIEF_PERSEVERANCE = new() + { + Id = new Guid("bf8f304d-2e8e-4a90-a9c5-7bd56f6058a6"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Belief Perseverance + Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism) is maintaining a belief despite new information that + firmly contradicts it. Since rationality involves conceptual flexibility, belief perseverance is consistent with + the view that human beings act at times in an irrational manner. Philosopher F.C.S. Schiller holds that belief + perseverance "deserves to rank among the fundamental 'laws' of nature". + + If beliefs are strengthened after others attempt to present evidence debunking them, this is known as a backfire + effect. There are psychological mechanisms by which backfire effects could potentially occur, but the evidence on + this topic is mixed, and backfire effects are very rare in practice. A 2020 review of the scientific literature on + backfire effects found that there have been widespread failures to replicate their existence, even under conditions + that would be theoretically favorable to observing them.[8] Due to the lack of reproducibility, as of 2020 most + researchers believe that backfire effects are either unlikely to occur on the broader population level, or they + only occur in very specific circumstances, or they do not exist. For most people, corrections and fact-checking + are very unlikely to have a negative impact, and there is no specific group of people in which backfire effects + have been consistently observed. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias ENDOWMENT_EFFECT = new() + { + Id = new Guid("b81482f8-b2cf-4b86-a5a4-fcd29aee4e69"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Endowment Effect + In psychology and behavioral economics, the endowment effect, also known as divestiture aversion, is the finding + that people are more likely to retain an object they own than acquire that same object when they do not own it. + The endowment theory can be defined as "an application of prospect theory positing that loss aversion associated + with ownership explains observed exchange asymmetries." + + This is typically illustrated in two ways. In a valuation paradigm, people's maximum willingness to pay (WTP) to + acquire an object is typically lower than the least amount they are willing to accept (WTA) to give up that same + object when they own it—even when there is no cause for attachment, or even if the item was only obtained minutes + ago. In an exchange paradigm, people given a good are reluctant to trade it for another good of similar value. + For example, participants first given a pen of equal expected value to that of a coffee mug were generally unwilling + to trade, whilst participants first given the coffee mug were also unwilling to trade it for the pen. + """, + + Related = [ + new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), // LOSS_AVERSION + ], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias PROCESSING_DIFFICULTY_EFFECT = new() + { + Id = new Guid("4f61b9fa-146a-4b6e-b075-f0ba2ee0d9d0"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Processing Difficulty Effect + That information that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processed with more difficulty) is more easily remembered. + """, + + Related = [ + new Guid("a4027640-1f52-4ff1-ae13-bd14a30d5b8d"), // LEVELS_OF_PROCESSING_EFFECT + ], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Other_memory_biases", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias PSEUDOCERTAINTY_EFFECT = new() + { + Id = new Guid("656c78c9-d75a-4c07-a80d-f3a5026f859c"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Pseudocertainty Effect + In prospect theory, the pseudocertainty effect is the tendency for people to perceive an outcome as certain while it is + actually uncertain in multi-stage decision making. The evaluation of the certainty of the outcome in a previous stage of + decisions is disregarded when selecting an option in subsequent stages. Not to be confused with certainty effect, the + pseudocertainty effect was discovered from an attempt at providing a normative use of decision theory for the certainty + effect by relaxing the cancellation rule. + """, + + Related = [ + new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), // LOSS_AVERSION + ], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudocertainty_effect", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias CERTAINTY_EFFECT = new() + { + Id = new Guid("ac7d745c-d66e-4886-87d7-ddaba349d4e8"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Certainty Effect + The certainty effect is the psychological effect resulting from the reduction of probability from certain to probable + (Tversky & Kahneman 1986). It is an idea introduced in prospect theory. Normally a reduction in the probability of + winning a reward (e.g., a reduction from 80% to 20% in the chance of winning a reward) creates a psychological effect + such as displeasure to individuals, which leads to the perception of loss from the original probability thus favoring + a risk-averse decision. However, the same reduction results in a larger psychological effect when it is done from + certainty than from uncertainty. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty_effect", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias DISPOSITION_EFFECT = new() + { + Id = new Guid("4ecb0187-b2e2-446f-87e2-1e32f269e497"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Disposition Effect + The disposition effect is an anomaly discovered in behavioral finance. It relates to the tendency of investors to sell + assets that have increased in value, while keeping assets that have dropped in value. Hersh Shefrin and Meir Statman + identified and named the effect in their 1985 paper, which found that people dislike losing significantly more than they + enjoy winning. The disposition effect has been described as one of the foremost vigorous actualities around individual + investors because investors will hold stocks that have lost value yet sell stocks that have gained value. + + In 1979, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky traced the cause of the disposition effect to the so-called "prospect theory". + The prospect theory proposes that when an individual is presented with two equal choices, one having possible gains and + the other with possible losses, the individual is more likely to opt for the former choice even though both would yield + the same economic result. + + The disposition effect can be minimized by means of a mental approach called "hedonic framing". For example, individuals + can try to force themselves to think of a single large gain as a number of smaller gains, to think of a number of smaller + losses as a single large loss, to think of the combination of a major gain and a minor loss as a net minor gain, and, in + the case of a combined major loss and minor gain, to think of the two separately. In a similar manner, investors show a + reversed disposition effect when they are framed to think of their investment as progress towards a specific investment + goal rather than a generic investment. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_effect", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias ZERO_RISK_BIAS = new() + { + Id = new Guid("77553998-bfa7-450e-acd9-586a55064302"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Zero-Risk Bias + Zero-risk bias is a tendency to prefer the complete elimination of risk in a sub-part over alternatives with greater + overall risk reduction. It often manifests in cases where decision makers address problems concerning health, safety, + and the environment. Its effect on decision making has been observed in surveys presenting hypothetical scenarios. + + Zero-risk bias is based on the way people feel better if a risk is eliminated instead of being merely mitigated. + Scientists identified a zero-risk bias in responses to a questionnaire about a hypothetical cleanup scenario involving + two hazardous sites X and Y, with X causing 8 cases of cancer annually and Y causing 4 cases annually. The respondents + ranked three cleanup approaches: two options each reduced the total number of cancer cases by 6, while the third reduced + the number by 5 and eliminated the cases at site Y. While the latter option featured the worst reduction overall, 42% of + the respondents ranked it better than at least one of the other options. This conclusion resembled one from an earlier + economics study that found people were willing to pay high costs to eliminate a risk. It has a normative justification + since once risk is eliminated, people would have less to worry about and such removal of worry also has utility. It is + also driven by our preference for winning much more than losing as well as the old instead of the new way, all of which + cloud the way the world is viewed. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias UNIT_BIAS = new() + { + Id = new Guid("ff43a9e2-7dde-47ca-a3ef-5a9c2d3117c9"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Unit Bias + The standard suggested amount of consumption (e.g., food serving size) is perceived to be appropriate, and a person would + consume it all even if it is too much for this particular person. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Other", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias IKEA_EFFECT = new() + { + Id = new Guid("565616dc-ed84-42af-b9cc-6fa666cc5d66"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # IKEA Effect + The IKEA effect is a cognitive bias in which consumers place a disproportionately high value on products they + partially created. The name refers to Swedish manufacturer and furniture retailer IKEA, which sells many items + of furniture that require assembly. A 2011 study found that subjects were willing to pay 63% more for furniture + they had assembled themselves than for equivalent pre-assembled items. + """, + + Related = [ + new Guid("b9c06da1-d2eb-4871-8159-a2a6d25e9eff"), // DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT + new Guid("30deb7d6-4019-4fef-9823-8d8126e54f0a"), // ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT + new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS + ], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA_effect", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias LOSS_AVERSION = new() + { + Id = new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Loss Aversion + In cognitive science and behavioral economics, loss aversion refers to a cognitive bias in which the same situation + is perceived as worse if it is framed as a loss, rather than a gain. It should not be confused with risk aversion, + which describes the rational behavior of valuing an uncertain outcome at less than its expected value. + + ## Application + In marketing, the use of trial periods and rebates tries to take advantage of the buyer's tendency to value the good + more after the buyer incorporates it in the status quo. In past behavioral economics studies, users participate up + until the threat of loss equals any incurred gains. Methods established by Botond Kőszegi and Matthew Rabin in + experimental economics illustrates the role of expectation, wherein an individual's belief about an outcome can + create an instance of loss aversion, whether or not a tangible change of state has occurred. + + Whether a transaction is framed as a loss or as a gain is important to this calculation. The same change in price + framed differently, for example as a $5 discount or as a $5 surcharge avoided, has a significant effect on + consumer behavior. Although traditional economists consider this "endowment effect", and all other effects of + loss aversion, to be completely irrational, it is important to the fields of marketing and behavioral finance. + Users in behavioral and experimental economics studies decided to cease participation in iterative money-making + games when the threat of loss was close to the expenditure of effort, even when the user stood to further their + gains. Loss aversion coupled with myopia has been shown to explain macroeconomic phenomena, such as the equity + premium puzzle. Loss aversion to kinship is an explanation for aversion to inheritance tax. + """, + + Related = [ + new Guid("b81482f8-b2cf-4b86-a5a4-fcd29aee4e69"), // ENDOWMENT_EFFECT + new Guid("ef521fbb-c20b-47c9-87f8-a571a06a03eb"), // NEGATIVITY_BIAS + ], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias GENERATION_EFFECT = new() + { + Id = new Guid("af442ab1-ffc5-404c-9ee8-3497fe6992ec"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Generation Effect + The generation effect is a phenomenon whereby information is better remembered if it is generated from one's own + mind rather than simply read. Researchers have struggled to fully explain why generated information is better + recalled than read information, as no single explanation has been comprehensive. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_effect", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT = new() + { + Id = new Guid("30deb7d6-4019-4fef-9823-8d8126e54f0a"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Escalation of Commitment + Escalation of commitment is a human behavior pattern in which an individual or group facing increasingly negative + outcomes from a decision, action, or investment nevertheless continue the behavior instead of altering course. + The actor maintains behaviors that are irrational, but align with previous decisions and actions. + + Economists and behavioral scientists use a related term, sunk-cost fallacy, to describe the justification of + increased investment of money or effort in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment ("sunk cost") + despite new evidence suggesting that the future cost of continuing the behavior outweighs the expected benefit. + + In sociology, irrational escalation of commitment or commitment bias describe similar behaviors. The phenomenon + and the sentiment underlying them are reflected in such proverbial images as "throwing good money after bad", + or "In for a penny, in for a pound", or "It's never the wrong time to make the right decision", or "If you find + yourself in a hole, stop digging." + """, + + Related = [ + new Guid("9a2d58f5-bbf1-4b34-8e1b-f9bcd8814f05"), // SUNK_COST_FALLACY + ], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias SUNK_COST_FALLACY = new() + { + Id = new Guid("9a2d58f5-bbf1-4b34-8e1b-f9bcd8814f05"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Sunk Cost Fallacy + The Misconception: You make rational decisions based on the future value of objects, investments and experiences. + The Truth: Your decisions are tainted by the emotional investments you accumulate, and the more you invest in + something the harder it becomes to abandon it. + + Example: R&D costs. Once spent, such costs are sunk and should have no effect on future pricing decisions. So a + pharmaceutical company's attempt to justify high prices because of the need to recoup R&D expenses is fallacious. + The company will charge market prices whether R&D had cost one dollar or one million dollars. However, R&D costs, + and the ability to recoup those costs, are a factor in deciding whether to spend the money on R&D. It’s important + to distinguish that while justifying high prices on past R&D is a fallacy, raising prices in order to finance + future R&D is not. + + Counterpoint: It is sometimes not that simple. In a broad range of situations, it is rational for people to condition + behavior on sunk costs, because of informational content, reputational concerns, or financial and time constraints. + """, + + Related = [ + new Guid("30deb7d6-4019-4fef-9823-8d8126e54f0a"), // ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT + ], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias IDENTIFIABLE_VICTIM_EFFECT = new() + { + Id = new Guid("0c18a8bd-5e5f-4cf0-a90e-47dd7a421035"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Identifiable Victim Effect + The identifiable victim effect is the tendency of individuals to offer greater aid when a specific, identifiable + person ("victim") is observed under hardship, as compared to a large, vaguely defined group with the same need. + + The identifiable victim effect has two components. People are more inclined to help an identified victim than an + unidentified one, and people are more inclined to help a single identified victim than a group of identified victims. + Although helping an identified victim may be commendable, the identifiable victim effect is considered a cognitive + bias. From a consequentialist point of view, the cognitive error is the failure to offer N times as much help to N + unidentified victims. + + The identifiable victim effect has a mirror image that is sometimes called the identifiable perpetrator effect. + Research has shown that individuals are more inclined to mete out punishment, even at their own expense, when they + are punishing a specific, identified perpetrator. + + The conceptualization of the identifiable victim effect as it is known today is commonly attributed to American + economist Thomas Schelling. He wrote that harm to a particular person invokes "anxiety and sentiment, guilt and awe, + responsibility and religion, [but]…most of this awesomeness disappears when we deal with statistical death". + + Historical figures from Joseph Stalin to Mother Teresa are credited with statements that epitomize the identifiable + victim effect. The remark "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic" is widely, although probably + incorrectly, attributed to Stalin. The remark "If I look at the mass I will never act. If I look at the one, I + will," is attributed to Mother Teresa. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifiable_victim_effect", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY = new() + { + Id = new Guid("2d57f4d6-e599-4738-812a-c12cef877779"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Appeal to Novelty + The appeal to novelty (also called appeal to modernity or argumentum ad novitatem) is a fallacy in which one + prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern. + In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument is not in itself a valid + argument. The fallacy may take two forms: overestimating the new and modern, prematurely and without investigation + assuming it to be best-case, or underestimating status quo, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to + be worst-case. + + Investigation may prove these claims to be true, but it is a fallacy to prematurely conclude this only from the + general claim that all novelty is good. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING = new() + { + Id = new Guid("19a483d0-2c8f-486f-bf9e-619d0df4c916"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Hyperbolic Discounting + Given two similar rewards, humans show a preference for one that arrives in a more prompt timeframe. Humans are said + to discount the value of the later reward, by a factor that increases with the length of the delay. In the financial + world, this process is normally modeled in the form of exponential discounting, a time-consistent model of discounting. + Many psychological studies have since demonstrated deviations in instinctive preference from the constant discount rate + assumed in exponential discounting. Hyperbolic discounting is an alternative mathematical model that agrees more closely + with these findings. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting", + ], + }; + + private static readonly Bias RISK_COMPENSATION = new() + { + Id = new Guid("10fcc295-02b6-4dbf-b655-f5bcff3c1ca7"), + Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST, + Description = + """ + # Risk Compensation + Risk compensation is a theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to perceived + levels of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected. + Although usually small in comparison to the fundamental benefits of safety interventions, it may result in a lower + net benefit than expected or even higher risks. + + By way of example, it has been observed that motorists drove closer to the vehicle in front when the vehicles were + fitted with anti-lock brakes. There is also evidence that the risk compensation phenomenon could explain the failure + of condom distribution programs to reverse HIV prevalence and that condoms may foster disinhibition, with people + engaging in risky sex both with and without condoms. + + By contrast, shared space is an urban street design method which consciously aims to increase the level of perceived + risk and uncertainty, thereby slowing traffic and reducing the number and seriousness of injuries. + """, + + Related = [], + Links = + [ + "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation", + ], + }; #endregion public static readonly IReadOnlyDictionary ALL_BIAS = new Dictionary { + { RISK_COMPENSATION.Id, RISK_COMPENSATION }, + { HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING.Id, HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING }, + { APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY.Id, APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY }, + { IDENTIFIABLE_VICTIM_EFFECT.Id, IDENTIFIABLE_VICTIM_EFFECT }, + { SUNK_COST_FALLACY.Id, SUNK_COST_FALLACY }, + { ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT.Id, ESCALATION_OF_COMMITMENT }, + { GENERATION_EFFECT.Id, GENERATION_EFFECT }, + { LOSS_AVERSION.Id, LOSS_AVERSION }, + { IKEA_EFFECT.Id, IKEA_EFFECT }, + { UNIT_BIAS.Id, UNIT_BIAS }, + { ZERO_RISK_BIAS.Id, ZERO_RISK_BIAS }, + { DISPOSITION_EFFECT.Id, DISPOSITION_EFFECT }, + { CERTAINTY_EFFECT.Id, CERTAINTY_EFFECT }, + { PSEUDOCERTAINTY_EFFECT.Id, PSEUDOCERTAINTY_EFFECT }, + { PROCESSING_DIFFICULTY_EFFECT.Id, PROCESSING_DIFFICULTY_EFFECT }, + { ENDOWMENT_EFFECT.Id, ENDOWMENT_EFFECT }, + { BELIEF_PERSEVERANCE.Id, BELIEF_PERSEVERANCE }, + { SYSTEM_JUSTIFICATION.Id, SYSTEM_JUSTIFICATION }, + { REVERSE_PSYCHOLOGY.Id, REVERSE_PSYCHOLOGY }, { REACTANCE.Id, REACTANCE }, { DECOY_EFFECT.Id, DECOY_EFFECT }, { SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS.Id, SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS },