From 91ecfa25952048474e3e6b8945fa7306724485bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thorsten Sommer Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:41:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] WIP: Added more bias --- .../Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs | 172 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 172 insertions(+) diff --git a/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs index afc8f9d7..d8f890b0 100644 --- a/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs +++ b/app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs @@ -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 ALL_BIAS = new Dictionary { + { 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 },