mirror of
https://github.com/MindWorkAI/AI-Studio.git
synced 2025-05-02 20:19:47 +00:00
Added remaining bias
This commit is contained in:
parent
390c4e86a3
commit
ec7636ee02
GPG Key ID:
371BBA77A02C0108
@ -5032,10 +5032,542 @@ public static class BiasCatalog
|
||||
],
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
||||
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 },
|
||||
{ HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING.Id, HYPERBOLIC_DISCOUNTING },
|
||||
{ APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY.Id, APPEAL_TO_NOVELTY },
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user