MindWorkAI/AI-Studio
MindWorkAI/AI-Studio
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/MindWorkAI/AI-Studio.git synced 2025-05-02 18:39:47 +00:00
Code Issues Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

WIP: Added more bias

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Thorsten Sommer 2024-10-15 20:53:40 +02:00
parent 91ecfa2595
commit 390c4e86a3
Signed by: tsommer
GPG Key ID: 371BBA77A02C0108
1 changed files with 540 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

541
app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs
View File

@ -4505,17 +4505,556 @@ public static class BiasCatalog
Some individuals are naturally high in reactance, a personality characteristic called trait reactance. 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 = Links =
[ [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)", "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 #endregion
public static readonly IReadOnlyDictionary<Guid, Bias> ALL_BIAS = new Dictionary<Guid, Bias> public static readonly IReadOnlyDictionary<Guid, Bias> ALL_BIAS = new Dictionary<Guid, Bias>
{ {
{ 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 }, { REACTANCE.Id, REACTANCE },
{ DECOY_EFFECT.Id, DECOY_EFFECT }, { DECOY_EFFECT.Id, DECOY_EFFECT },
{ SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS.Id, SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS }, { SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS.Id, SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS },