MindWorkAI/AI-Studio
MindWorkAI/AI-Studio
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/MindWorkAI/AI-Studio.git synced 2025-05-02 20:19:47 +00:00
Code Issues Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Added remaining bias

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Thorsten Sommer 2024-10-20 12:27:42 +02:00
parent 390c4e86a3
commit ec7636ee02
Signed by: tsommer
GPG Key ID: 371BBA77A02C0108
1 changed files with 532 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

532
app/MindWork AI Studio/Settings/DataModel/BiasCatalog.cs
View File

@ -5031,11 +5031,543 @@ public static class BiasCatalog
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation",
], ],
}; };
private static readonly Bias EFFORT_JUSTIFICATION = new()
{
Id = new Guid("cff2c74d-a160-4a90-b0b2-10f145b804cb"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Effort Justification
Effort justification is an idea and paradigm in social psychology stemming from Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive
dissonance. Effort justification is a person's tendency to attribute the value of an outcome they put effort into
achieving as greater than the objective value of the outcome.
Cognitive dissonance theory explains changes in people's attitudes or beliefs as the result of an attempt to reduce a
dissonance (discrepancy) between contradicting ideas or cognitions. In the case of effort justification, there is a
dissonance between the amount of effort exerted into achieving a goal or completing a task (high effort equalling high
"cost") and the subjective reward for that effort (lower than was expected for such an effort). By adjusting and increasing
one's attitude or subjective value of the goal, this dissonance is resolved.
One of the first and most classic examples of effort justification is Aronson and Mills's study. A group of young women
who volunteered to join a discussion group on the topic of the psychology of sex were asked to do a small reading test
to make sure they were not too embarrassed to talk about sexual-related topics with others. The mild-embarrassment
condition subjects were asked to read aloud a list of sex-related words such as prostitute or virgin. The
severe-embarrassment condition subjects were asked to read aloud a list of highly sexual words (e.g. fuck, cock) and
to read two vivid descriptions of sexual activity taken from contemporary novels. All subjects then listened to a
recording of a discussion about sexual behavior in animals which was dull and unappealing. When asked to rate the
group and its members, control and mild-embarrassment groups did not differ, but the severe-embarrassment group's
ratings were significantly higher. This group, whose initiation process was more difficult (embarrassment equalling
effort), had to increase their subjective value of the discussion group to resolve the dissonance.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("565616dc-ed84-42af-b9cc-6fa666cc5d66"), // IKEA_EFFECT
new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification",
],
};
private static readonly Bias TRAIT_ASCRIPTION_BIAS = new()
{
Id = new Guid("4727839d-64c5-4ba4-b044-6b09f14d5a34"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Trait Ascription Bias
Trait ascription bias is the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality,
behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable in their personal traits across different situations.
More specifically, it is a tendency to describe one's own behaviour in terms of situational factors while preferring
to describe another's behaviour by ascribing fixed dispositions to their personality. This may occur because peoples'
own internal states are more readily observable and available to them than those of others.
This attributional bias intuitively plays a role in the formation and maintenance of stereotypes and prejudice,
combined with the negativity effect. However, trait ascription and trait-based models of personality remain
contentious in modern psychology and social science research. Trait ascription bias refers to the situational
and dispositional evaluation and description of personality traits on a personal level. A similar bias on the
group level is called the outgroup homogeneity bias.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("ef521fbb-c20b-47c9-87f8-a571a06a03eb"), // NEGATIVITY_BIAS
new Guid("2cb8514a-c4a2-4cf6-aed7-72d7870ace84"), // BARNUM_EFFECT
new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
new Guid("a44a6bcf-b2b8-47f1-84e0-d740af56aa1e"), // ILLUSION_OF_ASYMMETRIC_INSIGHT
new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
new Guid("80f9b496-798a-4a1e-a426-815f23b8698e"), // INTROSPECTION_ILLUSION
new Guid("5ae6f7ec-3be2-47ad-ad75-0ed114f97fe0"), // NAÏVE_CYNICISM
new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait_ascription_bias",
],
};
private static readonly Bias DEFENSIVE_ATTRIBUTION_HYPOTHESIS = new()
{
Id = new Guid("5a973490-c19a-43c7-8a01-a26e0d05f275"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Defensive Attribution Hypothesis
The defensive attribution hypothesis (or bias, theory, or simply defensive attribution) is a social
psychological term where an observer attributes the causes for a mishap to minimize their fear of
being a victim or a cause in a similar situation. The attributions of blame are negatively correlated
to similarities between the observer and the people involved in the mishap, i.e. more responsibility
is attributed to the people involved who are dissimilar to the observer. Assigning responsibility
allows the observer to believe that the mishap was controllable and thus preventable.
A defensive attribution may also be used to protect the person's self-esteem if, despite everything,
the mishap does occur, because blame can be assigned to the "other" (person or situation). The use of
defensive attributions is considered a cognitive bias because an individual will change their beliefs
about a situation based upon their motivations or desires rather than the factual characteristics of
the situation.
## Sexual assault
Researchers examining sexual assault have consistently found that male participants blamed rapists less
than female participants did, and that male participants blamed the rape victims more than female
participants did. These findings support Shaver's similarity-responsibility hypothesis: male participants,
who are personally similar to (male) rapists, blame rapists less than female participants who are dissimilar
to rapists. On the other hand, female participants, who are personally similar to (female) rape victims,
blame the victims less than male participants.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("efceb4b1-e19f-4997-9f96-1657bb269b2d"), // ATTRIBUTION_BIAS
new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_attribution_hypothesis",
],
};
private static readonly Bias FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR = new()
{
Id = new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Fundamental Attribution Error
In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (FAE) [a] is a cognitive attribution bias in which
observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing
dispositional or personality factors. In other words, observers tend to overattribute the behaviors of others to
their personality (e.g., he is late because he's selfish) and underattribute them to the situation or context
(e.g., he is late because he got stuck in traffic). Although personality traits and predispositions are considered
to be observable facts in psychology, the fundamental attribution error is an error because it misinterprets their
effects.
The group attribution error (GAE) is identical to the fundamental attribution error, where the bias is shown between
members of different groups rather than different individuals. The ultimate attribution error is a derivative of the
FAE and GAE relating to the actions of groups, with an additional layer of self-justification relating to whether
the action of an individual is representative of the wider group.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
new Guid("577e79e5-0a53-4c4c-a2ea-d039870bfbb9"), // GROUP_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error",
],
};
private static readonly Bias ILLUSION_OF_CONTROL = new()
{
Id = new Guid("7fce783e-2120-4aad-9805-2c2a2b937b7d"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Illusion of Control
The illusion of control is the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to control events. It was named
by U.S. psychologist Ellen Langer and is thought to influence gambling behavior and belief in the paranormal.
It is the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to control events, for example, when someone feels a
sense of control over outcomes that they demonstrably do not influence. The illusion might arise because a person
lacks direct introspective insight into whether they are in control of events. This has been called the introspection
illusion. Instead, they may judge their degree of control by a process which is often unreliable. As a result, they see
themselves as responsible for events to which there is little or no causal link. For example, in one study, college
students were in a virtual reality setting to treat a fear of heights using an elevator. Those who were told that they
had control, yet had none, felt as though they had as much control as those who actually did have control over the
elevator. Those who were led to believe they did not have control said they felt as though they had little control.
The illusion is more common in familiar situations, and in situations where the person knows the desired outcome.
Feedback that emphasizes success rather than failure can increase the effect, while feedback that emphasizes failure
can decrease or reverse the effect. The illusion is weaker for depressed individuals and is stronger when individuals
have an emotional need to control the outcome. The illusion is strengthened by stressful and competitive situations,
including financial trading. Although people are likely to overestimate their control when the situations are heavily
chance-determined, they also tend to underestimate their control when they actually have it, which runs contrary to
some theories of the illusion and its adaptiveness. People also showed a higher illusion of control when they were
allowed to become familiar with a task through practice trials, make their choice before the event happens like
with throwing dice, and when they can make their choice rather than have it made for them with the same odds.
People are more likely to show control when they have more answers right at the beginning than at the end,
even when the people had the same number of correct answers.
Being in a position of power enhances the illusion of control, which may lead to overreach in risk taking.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("80f9b496-798a-4a1e-a426-815f23b8698e"), // INTROSPECTION_ILLUSION
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control",
],
};
private static readonly Bias ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS = new()
{
Id = new Guid("5da6dcf4-ed01-4e14-99b0-7a624b16cf17"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Actor-Observer Bias
Actor–observer asymmetry (also actor–observer bias) is a bias one makes when forming attributions about the behavior
of others or themselves. When people judge their own behavior, they are more likely to attribute their actions to the
particular situation than to their personality. However, when an observer is explaining the behavior of another person,
they are more likely to attribute this behavior to the actors' personality rather than to situational factors.
Sometimes the actor–observer asymmetry is defined as the fundamental attribution error, which is when people tend to
explain behavior on the internal, personal characteristics rather than the external factors or situational influences.
The specific hypothesis of an actor–observer asymmetry in attribution was originally proposed by Edward Jones and
Richard Nisbett, where they said that "actors tend to attribute the causes of their behavior to stimuli inherent
in the situation, while observers tend to attribute behavior to stable dispositions of the actor". Supported by
initial evidence, the hypothesis was long held as firmly established. However, a meta-analysis of all the published
tests of the hypothesis between 1971 and 2004 found that there was no actor–observer asymmetry of the sort that had
been previously proposed. The author of the study interpreted this result not so much as proof that actors and observers
explained behavior exactly the same way but as evidence that the original hypothesis was fundamentally flawed in the way
it framed people's explanations of behavior as attributions to either stable dispositions or the situation.
Considerations of actor–observer differences can be found in other disciplines as well, such as philosophy (e.g.
privileged access, incorrigibility), management studies, artificial intelligence, semiotics, anthropology, and
political science.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("ca2d4f1f-924f-44ae-886b-19240cf2c8c0"), // ULTIMATE_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
new Guid("b57a862b-b490-4d61-96b8-29d548c2eee4"), // POSITIVITY_EFFECT
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetry",
],
};
private static readonly Bias SELF_SERVING_BIAS = new()
{
Id = new Guid("923ee6c0-2f9c-47fc-a570-339190c1a250"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Self-Serving Bias
A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance
self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner. It is the belief that individuals
tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors. When individuals
reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and
failures, or take more credit for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting their
self-esteem from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but
they also serve the self's need for esteem. For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam
to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability
or unfair test questions might be exhibiting a self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are
made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.
Both motivational processes (i.e. self-enhancement, self-presentation) and cognitive processes (i.e. locus of control,
self-esteem) influence the self-serving bias. There are both cross-cultural (i.e. individualistic and collectivistic
culture differences) and special clinical population (i.e. depression) considerations within the bias. Much of the
research on the self-serving bias has used participant self-reports of attribution based on experimental manipulation
of task outcomes or in naturalistic situations. Some more modern research, however, has shifted focus to physiological
manipulations, such as emotional inducement and neural activation, in an attempt to better understand the biological
mechanisms that contribute to the self-serving bias.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("b9c06da1-d2eb-4871-8159-a2a6d25e9eff"), // DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT
new Guid("f1570784-f8ec-46fd-8bb8-763aef31a04a"), // FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR
new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
new Guid("ad32d669-fc79-44c9-a570-609e1ccdc799"), // OMISSION_BIAS
new Guid("7bf44f8f-a4b0-404c-8f15-8ca6e3322d32"), // OPTIMISM_BIAS
new Guid("b821d449-64e5-4c0a-9d5a-3fda609a9b86"), // OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT
new Guid("e36f82b7-43dd-4073-99d9-c33073007185"), // MORAL_CREDENTIAL_EFFECT
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias",
],
};
private static readonly Bias OPTIMISM_BIAS = new()
{
Id = new Guid("7bf44f8f-a4b0-404c-8f15-8ca6e3322d32"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Optimism Bias
Optimism bias or optimistic bias is a cognitive bias that causes someone to believe that they themselves
are less likely to experience a negative event. It is also known as unrealistic optimism or comparative optimism.
Optimism bias is common and transcends gender, ethnicity, nationality, and age. However, autistic people are less
susceptible to this kind of biases. Optimistic biases have also reported in other animals, such as rats and birds.
Four factors can cause a person to be optimistically biased: their desired end state, their cognitive mechanisms,
the information they have about themselves versus others, and overall mood. The optimistic bias is seen in a number
of situations. For example: people believing that they are less at risk of being a crime victim, smokers believing
that they are less likely to contract lung cancer or disease than other smokers, first-time bungee jumpers believing
that they are less at risk of an injury than other jumpers, or traders who think they are less exposed to potential
losses in the markets.
Although the optimism bias occurs for both positive events (such as believing oneself to be more financially successful
than others) and negative events (such as being less likely to have a drinking problem), there is more research and
evidence suggesting that the bias is stronger for negative events (the valence effect). Different consequences result
from these two types of events: positive events often lead to feelings of well being and self-esteem, while negative
events lead to consequences involving more risk, such as engaging in risky behaviors and not taking precautionary
measures for safety.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("67041978-ac8e-4254-ae2c-509e7301619f"), // PESSIMISM_BIAS
new Guid("7fce783e-2120-4aad-9805-2c2a2b937b7d"), // ILLUSION_OF_CONTROL
new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
new Guid("ef521fbb-c20b-47c9-87f8-a571a06a03eb"), // NEGATIVITY_BIAS
new Guid("b57a862b-b490-4d61-96b8-29d548c2eee4"), // POSITIVITY_EFFECT
new Guid("923ee6c0-2f9c-47fc-a570-339190c1a250"), // SELF_SERVING_BIAS
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias",
],
};
private static readonly Bias EGOCENTRIC_BIAS = new()
{
Id = new Guid("953746dc-ce10-4e3b-8f9e-9246de63f531"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Egocentric Bias
Egocentric bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on one's own perspective and/or have a higher opinion of
oneself than reality. It appears to be the result of the psychological need to satisfy one's ego and to be
advantageous for memory consolidation. Research has shown that experiences, ideas, and beliefs are more easily
recalled when they match one's own, causing an egocentric outlook. Michael Ross and Fiore Sicoly first identified
this cognitive bias in their 1979 paper, "Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution". Egocentric bias is
referred to by most psychologists as a general umbrella term under which other related phenomena fall.
The effects of egocentric bias can differ based on personal characteristics, such as age and the number of
languages one speaks. Thus far, there have been many studies focusing on specific implications of egocentric
bias in different contexts. Research on collaborative group tasks have emphasized that people view their own
contributions differently than they view that of others. Other areas of research have been aimed at studying
how mental health patients display egocentric bias, and at the relationship between egocentric bias and voter
distribution. These types of studies surrounding egocentric bias usually involve written or verbal questionnaires,
based on the subject's personal life or their decision in various hypothetical scenarios.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("923ee6c0-2f9c-47fc-a570-339190c1a250"), // SELF_SERVING_BIAS
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_bias",
],
};
private static readonly Bias DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT = new()
{
Id = new Guid("b9c06da1-d2eb-4871-8159-a2a6d25e9eff"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Dunning-Kruger Effect
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate
their abilities. It was first described by Justin Kruger and David Dunning in 1999. Some researchers also include the
opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger
effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific
overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("f8fd4635-69b3-47be-8243-8c7c6749cae2"), // ILLUSORY_SUPERIORITY
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect",
],
};
private static readonly Bias HARD_EASY_EFFECT = new()
{
Id = new Guid("07f0c252-1d97-4207-8000-8e4d8800fb42"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Hard-Easy Effect
The hard–easy effect is a cognitive bias that manifests itself as a tendency to overestimate the probability of
one's success at a task perceived as hard, and to underestimate the likelihood of one's success at a task perceived
as easy. The hard-easy effect takes place, for example, when individuals exhibit a degree of underconfidence in
answering relatively easy questions and a degree of overconfidence in answering relatively difficult questions.
"Hard tasks tend to produce overconfidence but worse-than-average perceptions," reported Katherine A. Burson,
Richard P. Larrick, and Jack B. Soll in a 2005 study, "whereas easy tasks tend to produce underconfidence and
better-than-average effects."
The hard-easy effect falls under the umbrella of "social comparison theory", which was originally formulated by
Leon Festinger in 1954. Festinger argued that individuals are driven to evaluate their own opinions and abilities
accurately, and social comparison theory explains how individuals carry out those evaluations by comparing themselves
to others.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("b821d449-64e5-4c0a-9d5a-3fda609a9b86"), // OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard%E2%80%93easy_effect",
],
};
private static readonly Bias FALSE_CONSENSUS_EFFECT = new()
{
Id = new Guid("bc0dc6d3-5115-4def-91ae-a38aebed185e"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# False Consensus Effect
In psychology, the false consensus effect, also known as consensus bias, is a pervasive cognitive bias that causes
people to "see their own behavioral choices and judgments as relatively common and appropriate to existing
circumstances". In other words, they assume that their personal qualities, characteristics, beliefs, and actions
are relatively widespread through the general population.
This false consensus is significant because it increases self-esteem (overconfidence effect). It can be derived from
a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment. This bias is especially prevalent in group
settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since
the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that
everybody thinks the same way. The false-consensus effect is not restricted to cases where people believe that
their values are shared by the majority, but it still manifests as an overestimate of the extent of their belief.
Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who
do not agree with them are defective in some way. There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the
availability heuristic, self-serving bias, and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying
factors. The bias may also result, at least in part, from non-social stimulus-reward associations. Maintenance
of this cognitive bias may be related to the tendency to make decisions with relatively little information.
When faced with uncertainty and a limited sample from which to make decisions, people often "project"
themselves onto the situation. When this personal knowledge is used as input to make generalizations,
it often results in the false sense of being part of the majority.
""",
Related = [
new Guid("b821d449-64e5-4c0a-9d5a-3fda609a9b86"), // OVERCONFIDENCE_EFFECT
new Guid("d749ce96-32f3-4c3d-86f7-26ff4edabe4a"), // AVAILABILITY_HEURISTIC
new Guid("923ee6c0-2f9c-47fc-a570-339190c1a250"), // SELF_SERVING_BIAS
new Guid("f0ad095e-8e9c-4bfb-855e-11fb5dd58cea"), // NAÏVE_REALISM
],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect",
],
};
private static readonly Bias THIRD_PERSON_EFFECT = new()
{
Id = new Guid("b9186d75-3362-4dd4-a3ec-4345a04161c9"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Third-Person Effect
The third-person effect hypothesis predicts that people tend to perceive that mass media messages have a greater
effect on others than on themselves, based on personal biases. The third-person effect manifests itself through
an individual's overestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on the generalized other, or an
underestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on themselves.
These types of perceptions stem from a self-motivated social desirability (not feeling influenced by mass messages
promotes self-esteem), a social-distance corollary (choosing to dissociate oneself from the others who may be
influenced), and a perceived exposure to a message (others choose to be influenced by persuasive communication).
Other names for the effect are "Third-person perception" and "Web Third-person effect". From 2015, the effect is
named "Web Third-person effect" when it is verified in social media, media websites, blogs and in websites in general.
""",
Related = [],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_effect",
],
};
private static readonly Bias SOCIAL_DESIRABILITY_BIAS = new()
{
Id = new Guid("a378b725-8bf9-4213-a875-326426d5c759"),
Category = BiasCategory.NEED_TO_ACT_FAST,
Description =
"""
# Social-Desirability Bias
In social science research, social-desirability bias is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey
respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of
over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad", or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious
problem with conducting research with self-reports. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average
tendencies as well as individual differences.
Topics where socially desirable responding (SDR) is of special concern are self-reports of abilities, personality,
sexual behavior, and drug use. When confronted with the question "How often do you masturbate?," for example,
respondents may be pressured by a social taboo against masturbation, and either under-report the frequency or
avoid answering the question. Therefore, the mean rates of masturbation derived from self-report surveys are
likely to be severely underestimated.
When confronted with the question, "Do you use drugs/illicit substances?" the respondent may be influenced by
the fact that controlled substances, including the more commonly used marijuana, are generally illegal.
Respondents may feel pressured to deny any drug use or rationalize it, e.g. "I only smoke marijuana when my
friends are around." The bias can also influence reports of number of sexual partners. In fact, the bias
may operate in opposite directions for different subgroups: Whereas men tend to inflate the numbers, women
tend to underestimate theirs. In either case, the mean reports from both groups are likely to be distorted
by social desirability bias.
Other topics that are sensitive to social-desirability bias include:
- Self-reported personality traits will correlate strongly with social desirability bias[2]
- Personal income and earnings, often inflated when low and deflated when high
- Feelings of low self-worth and/or powerlessness, often denied
- Excretory functions, often approached uncomfortably, if discussed at all
- Compliance with medicinal-dosing schedules, often inflated
- Family planning, including use of contraceptives and abortion[3][4]
- Religion, often either avoided or uncomfortably approached[5]
- Patriotism, either inflated or, if denied, done so with a fear of other party's judgment
- Bigotry and intolerance, often denied, even if it exists within the responder
- Intellectual achievements, often inflated
- Physical appearance, either inflated or deflated
- Acts of real or imagined physical violence, often denied
- Indicators of charity or "benevolence," often inflated
- Illegal acts, often denied
- Voter turnout
""",
Related = [],
Links =
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-desirability_bias",
],
};
#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>
{ {
{ SOCIAL_DESIRABILITY_BIAS.Id, SOCIAL_DESIRABILITY_BIAS },
{ THIRD_PERSON_EFFECT.Id, THIRD_PERSON_EFFECT },
{ FALSE_CONSENSUS_EFFECT.Id, FALSE_CONSENSUS_EFFECT },
{ HARD_EASY_EFFECT.Id, HARD_EASY_EFFECT },
{ DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT.Id, DUNNING_KRUGER_EFFECT },
{ EGOCENTRIC_BIAS.Id, EGOCENTRIC_BIAS },
{ OPTIMISM_BIAS.Id, OPTIMISM_BIAS },
{ SELF_SERVING_BIAS.Id, SELF_SERVING_BIAS },
{ ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS.Id, ACTOR_OBSERVER_BIAS },
{ ILLUSION_OF_CONTROL.Id, ILLUSION_OF_CONTROL },
{ FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR.Id, FUNDAMENTAL_ATTRIBUTION_ERROR },
{ DEFENSIVE_ATTRIBUTION_HYPOTHESIS.Id, DEFENSIVE_ATTRIBUTION_HYPOTHESIS },
{ TRAIT_ASCRIPTION_BIAS.Id, TRAIT_ASCRIPTION_BIAS },
{ EFFORT_JUSTIFICATION.Id, EFFORT_JUSTIFICATION },
{ RISK_COMPENSATION.Id, RISK_COMPENSATION }, { RISK_COMPENSATION.Id, RISK_COMPENSATION },
{ HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING.Id, HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING }, { HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING.Id, HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING },
{ APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY.Id, APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY }, { APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY.Id, APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY },