MindWorkAI/AI-Studio
MindWorkAI/AI-Studio
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/MindWorkAI/AI-Studio.git synced 2025-05-02 08:59:48 +00:00
Code Issues Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

WIP: Added more bias

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Thorsten Sommer 2024-10-14 20:41:57 +02:00
parent 6212ec6f23
commit 91ecfa2595
Signed by: tsommer
GPG Key ID: 371BBA77A02C0108
1 changed files with 172 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

172
app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs
View File

@ -4344,10 +4344,182 @@ public static class BiasCatalog
],
};
private static readonly Bias STATUS_QUO_BIAS = new()
{
Id = new Guid("b9e05a25-ac09-407d-8aee-f54a04decf0b"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Status Quo Bias
A status quo bias or default bias is a cognitive bias which results from a preference for the maintenance
of one's existing state of affairs. The current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point,
and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss or gain. Corresponding to different alternatives,
this current baseline or default option is perceived and evaluated by individuals as a positive.
Status quo bias should be distinguished from a rational preference for the status quo ante, as when the
current state of affairs is objectively superior to the available alternatives, or when imperfect information
is a significant problem. A large body of evidence, however, shows that status quo bias frequently affects
human decision-making. Status quo bias should also be distinguished from psychological inertia, which refers
to a lack of intervention in the current course of affairs.
The bias intersects with other non-rational cognitive processes such as loss aversion, in which losses
comparative to gains are weighed to a greater extent. Further non-rational cognitive processes include
existence bias, endowment effect, longevity, mere exposure, and regret avoidance. Experimental evidence
for the detection of status quo bias is seen through the use of the reversal test. A vast amount of
experimental and field examples exist. Behaviour in regard to economics, retirement plans, health, and
ethical choices show evidence of the status quo bias.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("b81482f8-b2cf-4b86-a5a4-fcd29aee4e69"), // ENDOWMENT_EFFECT
new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
new Guid("ad3ed908-c56e-411b-a130-8af8574ff67b"), // LOSS_AVERSION
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias",
],
};
private static readonly Bias SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS = new()
{
Id = new Guid("09527928-6417-4eea-9719-d8ed4748691f"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Social Comparison Bias
Social comparison bias is the tendency to have feelings of dislike and competitiveness with someone seen as
physically, socially, or mentally better than oneself. Social comparison bias or social comparison theory is
the idea that individuals determine their own worth based on how they compare to others. The theory was
developed in 1954 by psychologist Leon Festinger. This can be compared to social comparison, which is
believed to be central to achievement motivation, feelings of injustice, depression, jealousy, and people's
willingness to remain in relationships or jobs. The basis of the theory is that people are believed to
compete for the best outcome in relation to their peers. For example, one might make a comparison between the
low-end department stores they go to frequently and the designer stores of their peers. Such comparisons may
evoke feelings of resentment, anger, and envy with their peers. This bias revolves mostly around wealth and
social status; it is unconscious and people who make these are largely unaware of them. In most cases, people
try to compare themselves to those in their peer group or with whom they are similar.
""",
Related = [],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_bias",
],
};
private static readonly Bias DECOY_EFFECT = new()
{
Id = new Guid("c8a532e9-5958-4894-aa0d-29ed6412780f"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Decoy Effect
In marketing, the decoy effect (or attraction effect or asymmetric dominance effect) is the phenomenon
whereby consumers will tend to have a specific change in preference between two options when also presented
with a third option that is asymmetrically dominated. An option is asymmetrically dominated when it is
inferior in all respects to one option; but, in comparison to the other option, it is inferior in some
respects and superior in others. In other words, in terms of specific attributes determining preferences,
it is completely dominated by (i.e., inferior to) one option and only partially dominated by the other.
When the asymmetrically dominated option is present, a higher percentage of consumers will prefer the
dominating option than when the asymmetrically dominated option is absent. The asymmetrically dominated
option is therefore a decoy serving to increase preference for the dominating option. The decoy effect
is also an example of the violation of the independence of irrelevant alternatives axiom of decision
theory. More simply, when deciding between two options, an unattractive third option can change the
perceived preference between the other two.
The decoy effect is considered particularly important in choice theory because it is a violation of the
assumption of "regularity" present in all axiomatic choice models, for example in a Luce model of choice.
Regularity means that it should not be possible for the market share of any alternative to increase when
another alternative is added to the choice set. The new alternative should reduce, or at best leave unchanged,
the choice share of existing alternatives. Regularity is violated in the example shown below where a new
alternative C not only changes the relative shares of A and B but actually increases the share of A in
absolute terms. Similarly, the introduction of a new alternative D increases the share of B in absolute
terms.
## Example
Suppose there is a consideration set (options to choose from in a menu) that involves smartphones. Consumers
will generally see higher storage capacity (number of GB) and lower price as positive attributes; while some
consumers may want a device that can store more photos, music, etc., other consumers will want a device that
costs less. In Consideration Set 1, two devices are available:
Consideration Set 1:
- A: $400, 300GB
- B: $300, 200GB
In this case, some consumers will prefer A for its greater storage capacity, while others will prefer B for
its lower price.
Now suppose that a new player, C, the "decoy", is added to the market; it is more expensive than both A, the
"target", and B, the "competitor", and has more storage than B but less than A:
Consideration Set 2:
- A (target): $400, 300GB
- B (competitor): $300, 200GB
- C (decoy): $450, 250GB
The addition of decoy C — which consumers would presumably avoid, given that a lower price can be paid for a
model with more storage—causes A, the dominating option, to be chosen more often than if only the two choices
in Consideration Set 1 existed; C affects consumer preferences by acting as a basis of comparison for A and B.
Because A is better than C in both respects, while B is only partially better than C, more consumers will
prefer A now than did before. C is therefore a decoy whose sole purpose is to increase sales of A.
Conversely, suppose that instead of C, a player D is introduced that has less storage than both A and B, and
that is more expensive than B but not as expensive as A:
Consideration Set 3:
- A (competitor): $400, 300GB
- B (target): $300, 200GB
- D (decoy): $350, 150GB
The result here is similar: consumers will not prefer D, because it is not as good as B in any respect. However,
whereas C increased preference for A, D has the opposite effect, increasing preference for B.
""",
Related = [],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy_effect",
],
};
private static readonly Bias REACTANCE = new()
{
Id = new Guid("d3c2cb4b-ec29-4cf3-a485-9a98e9f1f223"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Reactance
In psychology, reactance is an unpleasant motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, regulations, advice, or
recommendations that are perceived to threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. Reactance occurs when an
individual feels that an agent is attempting to limit one's choice of response and/or range of alternatives.
Reactance can occur when someone is heavily pressured into accepting a certain view or attitude. Reactance can
encourage an individual to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude which is indeed contrary to that which was
intended — which is to say, to a response of noncompliance — and can also increase resistance to persuasion.
Some individuals might employ reverse psychology in a bid to exploit reactance for their benefit, in an attempt
to influence someone to choose the opposite of what is being requested. Reactance can occur when an individual
senses that someone is trying to compel them to do something; often the individual will offer resistance and
attempt to extricate themselves from the situation.
Some individuals are naturally high in reactance, a personality characteristic called trait reactance.
""",
Related = [],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)",
],
};
#endregion
public static readonly IReadOnlyDictionary<Guid, Bias> ALL_BIAS = new Dictionary<Guid, Bias>
{
{ REACTANCE.Id, REACTANCE },
{ DECOY_EFFECT.Id, DECOY_EFFECT },
{ SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS.Id, SOCIAL_COMPARISON_BIAS },
{ STATUS_QUO_BIAS.Id, STATUS_QUO_BIAS },
{ AMBIGUITY_EFFECT.Id, AMBIGUITY_EFFECT },
{ INFORMATION_BIAS.Id, INFORMATION_BIAS },
{ BELIEF_BIAS.Id, BELIEF_BIAS },