Peer-reviewed articles

Peters, T.. (2020). The Struggle for Cognitive Liberty: Retrofitting the Self in Activist Theology. Theology and Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2020.1786219
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Sommaggio, P., Mazzocca, M., Gerola, A., & Ferro, F.. (2017). Cognitive Liberty. A first step towards a human neuro-rights declaration. BioLaw Journal

Plain numerical DOI: 10.15168/blj.v0i3.255
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Weissenbacher, A.. (2018). Defending cognitive liberty in an age of moral engineering. Theology and Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2018.1488476
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Sommaggio, P., & Mazzocca, M.. (2020). Cognitive liberty and human rights. In Neuroscience and Law: Complicated Crossings and New Perspectives

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-38840-9_6
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Ienca, M.. (2017). The Right to Cognitive Liberty. Scientific American

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican0817-10
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Ienca, M., & Andorno, R.. (2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Walsh, C.. (2010). Drugs and human rights: Private palliatives, sacramental freedoms and cognitive liberty. International Journal of Human Rights

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/13642980802704270
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Kraft, C. J., & Giordano, J.. (2017). Integrating brain science and law: Neuroscientific evidence and legal perspectives on protecting individual liberties. Frontiers in Neuroscience

Plain numerical DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00621
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Rainey, S., Martin, S., Christen, A., Mégevand, P., & Fourneret, E.. (2020). Brain Recording, Mind-Reading, and Neurotechnology: Ethical Issues from Consumer Devices to Brain-Based Speech Decoding. Science and Engineering Ethics

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00218-0
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Ienca, M., & Andorno, R.. (2021). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and Neurotechnology. Analisis Filosofico

Plain numerical DOI: 10.36446/AF.2021.386
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Wolpe, P. R.. (2017). Neuroprivacy and cognitive liberty. In The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4324/9781315708652
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Walsh, C.. (2014). Beyond religious freedom: Psychedelics and cognitive liberty. In Prohibition, Religious Freedom, and Human Rights: Regulating Traditional Drug Use

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40957-8_11
DOI URL
directSciHub download

White, A. E.. (2010). The lie of fMRI: An examination of the ethics of a market in lie detection using functional magnetic resonance imaging. HEC Forum

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s10730-010-9141-6
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Xu, H., & Dinev, T.. (2012). The security-liberty balance: Individuals’ attitudes towards internet government surveillance. Electronic Government

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1504/EG.2012.044778
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Davies, W.. (2017). Elite Power under Advanced Neoliberalism. Theory, Culture & Society

, 34(5–6), 227–250.
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/0263276417715072
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Foster, J. B., & Holleman, H.. (2010). The Financial Power Elite. Monthly Review

, 62(1), 1.
Plain numerical DOI: 10.14452/MR-062-01-2010-05_1
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J.. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS ONE

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Boire, R.. (2000). On Cognitive Liberty. In Journal of Cognitive Liberties

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/00207144.2013.753820
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Ienca, M., & Andorno, R.. (2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Shanker, S. G.. (2009). Three concepts of liberty. In After Cognitivism: A Reassessment of Cognitive Science and Philosophy

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9992-2_13
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Rindermann, H.. (2012). Intellectual classes, technological progress and economic development: The rise of cognitive capitalism. Personality and Individual Differences

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.001
DOI URL
directSciHub download

SENTENTIA, W.. (2006). Neuroethical Considerations: Cognitive Liberty and Converging Technologies for Improving Human Cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1196/annals.1305.014
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Desai, A. C.. (2011). Libertarian Paternalism, Externalities, and the “Spirit of Liberty”: How Thaler and Sunstein Are Nudging Us toward an “Overlapping Consensus”. Law and Social Inquiry, 36(1), 263–295.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2010.01231.x
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Pustilnik, A. C.. (2012). Neurotechnologies at the intersection of criminal procedure and constitutional law. In The Constitution and the Future of Criminal Justice in America

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139108034.011
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Ludwig Wittgenstein – Aspect Blindness

Leave a comment

Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language. From 1929 to 1947, Wittgenstein taught at the University of Cambridge .More at Wikipedia

“The aspects of things that are most important to us are hidden from us because of their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something – because it is always before one’s eyes” (1958, §129)

euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/film.2018.0060

Further References

WITTGENSTEIN, L.. (2013). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00617.x
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Kripke, S.. (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: An Elementary Exposition. Ethics

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1086/292635
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Grayling, A. C.. (2001). Wittgenstein : a very short introduction. Very short introductions

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1093/actrade/9780192854117.001.0001
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Hamilton, A.. (2017). Ludwig Wittgenstein. In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Memory

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4324/9781315687315
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Wittgenstein, L.. (1975). On Certainty. Igarss 2014

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Anscombe, G. E. M.. (1995). Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophy

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1017/S003181910006558X
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Das, V.. (1998). Wittgenstein and Anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.27.1.171
DOI URL
directSciHub download

ColivaMc, A.. (1997). Wittgenstein and the Philosophical Investigations. Lingua e Stile

Plain numerical DOI: loc?; alibris; amazon $12; MU ELLIS B3376.W563 P53255 1997
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Hacker, P. M. S.. (2008). Wittgenstein. In The World’s Great Philosophers

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1002/9780470693704.ch37
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Bloor, D.. (1999). Wittgenstein, Rules and Institutions. International Journal of Philosophical Studies

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4324/9780203318812
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Sen, A.. (2003). Sraffa, Wittgenstein, and Gramsci. Journal of Economic Literature

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1257/002205103771800022
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Sluga, H., & Stern, D. G.. (2017). Preface to the second edition. The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein, Second Edition

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1017/9781316341285.001
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Wittgenstein, L.. (1965). I: A Lecture on Ethics. The Philosophical Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.2307/2183526
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Wittgenstein, L.. (1958). The Blue and Brown Books. New York

Plain numerical DOI: 10.2307/2216414
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Wittgenstein, L.. (1984). Zettel. In Werkausgabe in 8 Bänden
Picardi, E.. (1997). Wittgenstein and Quine. Lingua e Stile
Glock, H.-J.. (1996). A Wittgenstein dictionary. The Blackwell philosopher dictionaries

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/b.9780631185376.1996.x
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Schatzki, T. R.. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Review of Metaphysics

Plain numerical DOI: 10.5860/CHOICE.34-3809
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Wittgenstein, L.. (1921). Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Routledge Classics Routledge Classics
Block, N.. (2012). Wittgenstein and qualia. In Reading Putnam

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4324/9780203117095
DOI URL
directSciHub download

McDowell, J.. (1984). Wittgenstein on following a rule. Synthese

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/BF00485246
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

Leave a comment

Manufacturing consensus

Leave a comment

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, in which the authors propose that the mass communication media of the U.S. “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion”, by means of the propaganda model of communication. The title derives from the phrase “the manufacture of consent,” employed in the book Public Opinion (1922), by Walter Lippmann (1889–1974).

The book was revised 20 years after its first publication to take account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. There has been debate about how the Internet has changed the public´s access to information since 1988.

More at Wikipedia

“Pantheon books, 1988 the mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. it is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. in a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda. in countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of dominant elite. it is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. this is especially true where the media actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest. what is not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques, as well as the huge inequality in command of resources, and its effect both on access to a private media system and on its behavior and performance. a propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. it traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public. the essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news ‘filters,’ fall under the following headings: (i) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and ‘experts’ funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) ‘flak’ as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) ‘anticommunism’ as a national religion and control mechanism. these elements interact with and reinforce one another. the raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. they fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the …”

Herman, E. S., & Herman, Edward S.; Chomsky, N.. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. News: A Reader

Plain numerical DOI: 10.2307/3517986
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Comeforo, K.. (2010). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Global Media and Communication

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/1742766510373714
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Burawoy, M.. (1979). Manufacturing Consent. Social Scientist

Plain numerical DOI: 10.2307/3517986
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Burawoy, M.. (2001). Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Contemporary Sociology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.2307/3089314
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Borkar, V. S., Karnik, A., Nair, J., & Nalli, S.. (2015). Manufacturing Consent. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2014.2349591
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Chomsky, E. I. A. S. O. I. I.. (1992). Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. East
Han, R.. (2015). Manufacturing Consent in Cyberspace :. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/03797720500083443
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N.. (1988). Manufacturing Consent, A Propaganda Model. Manufacturing Consent
Burawoy, M.. (2012). Manufacturing Consent revisited. La Nouvelle Revue Du Travail

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4000/nrt.143
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Impression management

Leave a comment

Impression management is a conscious or subconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event. They do so by regulating and controlling information in social interaction.[1] It was first conceptualized by Erving Goffman in 1959 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, and then was expanded upon in 1967.[2] An example of impression management theory in play is in sports such as soccer. At an important game, a player would want to showcase themselves in the best light possible, because there are college recruiters watching. This person would have the flashiest pair of cleats and try and perform their best to show off their skills. Their main goal may be to impress the college recruiters in a way that maximizes their chances of being chosen for a college team rather than winning the game.[3]

Impression management is usually used synonymously with self-presentation, in which a person tries to influence the perception of their image. The notion of impression management was first applied to face-to-face communication, but then was expanded to apply to computer-mediated communication. The concept of impression management is applicable to academic fields of study such as psychology and sociology as well as practical fields such as corporate communication and media.

Johnson-Cartee, K. S.. (2010). Impression management. In Political and Civic Leadership: A Reference Handbook

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4135/9781412979337.n94
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M.. (1990). Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model. Psychological Bulletin

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J.. (1988). Impression Management in Organizations. Journal of Management

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/014920638801400210
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Moro, E., & Vidailhet, M.. (2010). Management. Blue Books of Neurology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/B978-1-4160-6641-5.00027-1
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Henderson, P. W., Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A.. (2004). Impression Management Using Typeface Design. Journal of Marketing

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.68.4.60.42736
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, M. K., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, B. J.. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/0149206308324325
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C.. (1995). EFFECTS ON IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT ON PERFORMANCE RATINGS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY.. Academy of Management Journal

Plain numerical DOI: 10.2307/256734
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Barich, H., & Kotler, P.. (1991). A Framework for Marketing Image Management. Sloan Management Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(90)90145-T
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Bolino, M. C.. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?. Academy of Management Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1999.1580442
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M.. (2009). Good Soldiers and Good Actors: Prosocial and Impression Management Motives as Interactive Predictors of Affiliative Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/a0013770
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Paulhus, D. L.. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H.. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00212-X
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Parhankangas, A., & Ehrlich, M.. (2014). How entrepreneurs seduce business angels: An impression management approach. Journal of Business Venturing

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.08.001
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. .. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.43.1.133
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Inattentional blindness

Leave a comment

Inattentional blindness, also known as perceptual blindness, is a psychological lack of attention that is not associated with any vision defects or deficits. It may be further defined as the event in which an individual fails to perceive an unexpected stimulus that is in plain sight.More at Wikipedia Inattentional blindness, also known as perceptual blindness, is a psychological lack of attention that is not associated with any vision defects or deficits. It may be further defined as the event in which an individual fails to perceive an unexpected stimulus that is in plain sight.More at Wikipedia

Related References

Simons, D.. (2007). Inattentional blindness. Scholarpedia

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4249/scholarpedia.3244
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Simons, D. J.. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01455-8
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Most, S. B., Scholl, B. J., Clifford, E. R., & Simons, D. J.. (2005). What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychological Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.217
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F.. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1068/p281059
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Rees, G., Russell, C., Frith, C. D., & Driver, J.. (1999). Inattentional blindness versus inattentional amnesia for fixated but ignored words. Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5449.2504
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Jensen, M. S., Yao, R., Street, W. N., & Simons, D. J.. (2011). Change blindness and inattentional blindness. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1002/wcs.130
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Most, S. B., Simons, D. J., Scholl, B. J., & Chabris, C. F.. (2000). Sustained Inattentional Blindness. Psyche

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1068/p2952
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Most, S. B.. (2010). What’s “inattentional” about inattentional blindness?. Consciousness and Cognition

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.01.011
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Mack, A.. (2003). Inattentional Blindness: Looking Without Seeing. Current Directions in Psychological Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/1467-8721.01256
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Drew, T., Võ, M. L. H., & Wolfe, J. M.. (2013). The Invisible Gorilla Strikes Again: Sustained Inattentional Blindness in Expert Observers. Psychological Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/0956797613479386
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Mack, A., & Rock, I.. (1998). Inattentional blindness. MIT Press/Bradford Books Series in Cognitive Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.aorn.2010.03.011
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Cartwright-Finch, U., & Lavie, N.. (2007). The role of perceptual load in inattentional blindness. Cognition

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.01.002
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Seegmiller, J. K., Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L.. (2011). Individual Differences in Susceptibility to Inattentional Blindness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/a0022474
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Memmert, D., & Furley, P.. (2007). “I Spy with My Little Eye!”: Breadth of Attention, Inattentional Blindness, and Tactical Decision Making in Team Sports. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1123/jsep.29.3.365
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Memmert, D.. (2006). The effects of eye movements, age, and expertise on inattentional blindness. Consciousness and Cognition

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2006.01.001
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Hodgins, H. S., & Adair, K. C.. (2010). Attentional processes and meditation. Consciousness and Cognition

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.04.002
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Bredemeier, K., & Simons, D. J.. (2012). Working memory and inattentional blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0204-8
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Fougnie, D., & Marois, R.. (2007). Executive working memory load induces inattentional blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.3758/BF03194041
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Most, S. B., Simons, D. J., Scholl, B. J., Jimenez, R., Clifford, E., & Chabris, C. F.. (2001). How not to be seen: The contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00303
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Kim, C. Y., & Blake, R.. (2005). Psychophysical magic: Rendering the visible “invisible”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.06.012
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Matsuyoshi, D., Ikeda, T., Sawamoto, N., Kakigi, R., Fukuyama, H., & Osaka, N.. (2010). Task-irrelevant memory load induces inattentional blindness without temporo-parietal suppression. Neuropsychologia

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.021
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Wolfe, J. M.. (1999). Inattentional amnesia. In Fleeting memories: {Cognition} of brief visual stimuli

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1162/0898929053747685
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Bressan, P., & Pizzighello, S.. (2008). The attentional cost of inattentional blindness. Cognition

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.001
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Macdonald, J. S. P., & Lavie, N.. (2011). Visual perceptual load induces inattentional deafness. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Plain numerical DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0144-4
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Koivisto, M., Hyönä, J., & Revonsuo, A.. (2004). The effects of eye movements, spatial attention, and stimulus features on inattentional blindness. Vision Research

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.026
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Epistemology

Leave a comment

Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi/ (About this sound listen); from Greek, Modern ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning ‘knowledge’, and λόγος, logos, meaning ‘logical discourse’) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.[1]

Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,[2][3] (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as: “What makes justified beliefs justified?”,[4] “What does it mean to say that we know something?”,[5] and fundamentally “How do we know that we know?”.[6]

Metacognition – Thinking about thinking

Leave a comment

Metacognition is “cognition about cognition”, “thinking about thinking”, “knowing about knowing”, becoming “aware of one’s awareness” and in general “higher-order thinking”. Meta is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter. The term is etymologically derived from Ancient Greek from μετά (metá, cf. metaphysics, q.v. a science of that which transcends the physical, i.e., “higher than, transcending, overarching, dealing with the most fundamental matters”; cf. metacommunication (n.) “a secondary communication that takes place with, or underlies, a more obvious communication”; cf. metalogical (n.) “beyond the sphere of logic, transcending logic” (by 1865).

Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P.. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Lai, E. R.. (2011). Metacognition : A Literature Review Research Report. Research Reports

doi.org/10.2307/3069464

Baker, L.. (2010). Metacognition. In International Encyclopedia of Education

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00484-X
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Nelson, T. O.. (1996). Consciousness and Metacognition. American Psychologist

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Fleming, S. M., & Lau, H. C.. (2014). How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Plain numerical DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Tanner, K. D.. (2012). Promoting student metacognition.. CBE Life Sciences Education

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G.. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Shimamura, A. P.. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Neuroscience of Metacognition. Consciousness and Cognition

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1006/ccog.2000.0450
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Fleming, S. M., & Frith, C. D.. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of metacognition. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Metacognition

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-45190-4
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z.. (2015). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Georghiades, P.. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/0950069032000119401
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Foote, A. L., & Crystal, J. D.. (2007). Metacognition in the Rat. Current Biology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.061
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Livingston, J.. (2003). Metacognition: An Overview. Educational resources information center

doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119401

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R.. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Schraw, G.. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1023/A:1003044231033
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Frith, C. D.. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0123
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Fleming, S. M., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D.. (2012). Metacognition: Computation, biology and function. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0021
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Smith, J. D.. (2009). The study of animal metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.009
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Fox, E., & Riconscente, M.. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s10648-008-9079-2
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Brown, A. L.. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In Metacognition, motivation, and understanding

Plain numerical DOI: doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.164.3.1416
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Terrace, H. S., & Son, L. K.. (2009). Comparative metacognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2009.06.004
DOI URL
directSciHub download

List of cognitive biases

Leave a comment

Click on the image to zoom and pan. You can use the mouse-wheel to navigate the image.

Open a scrollable version of the application in full-screen modus
Open Bias Codex in Lightbox


cognitive-liberty.online/cognitive-biases-zoomify/list-of-cognitive-biases.html

[wl_chord]

Decision-making, belief, and behavioral biases

Many of these biases affect belief formation, business and economic decisions, and human behavior in general.

Name Description
Ambiguity effect The tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem “unknown”.[10]
Anchoring or focalism The tendency to rely too heavily, or “anchor”, on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information acquired on that subject).[11][12]
Anthropocentric thinking The tendency to use human analogies as a basis for reasoning about other, less familiar, biological phenomena.[13]
Anthropomorphism or personification The tendency to characterize animals, objects, and abstract concepts as possessing human-like traits, emotions, and intentions.[14]
Attentional bias The tendency of perception to be affected by recurring thoughts.[15]
Automation bias The tendency to depend excessively on automated systems which can lead to erroneous automated information overriding correct decisions.[16]
Availability heuristic The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater “availability” in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.[17]
Availability cascade A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or “repeat something long enough and it will become true”).[18]
Backfire effect The reaction to disconfirming evidence by strengthening one’s previous beliefs.[19] cf. Continued influence effect.
Bandwagon effect The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.[20]
Base rate fallacy or Base rate neglect The tendency to ignore base rate information (generic, general information) and focus on specific information (information only pertaining to a certain case).[21]
Belief bias An effect where someone’s evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.[22]
Ben Franklin effect A person who has performed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person.[23]
Berkson’s paradox The tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional probabilities.[24]
Bias blind spot The tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.[25]
Bystander effect The tendency to think that others will act in an emergency situation.[26]
Choice-supportive bias The tendency to remember one’s choices as better than they actually were.[27]
Clustering illusion The tendency to overestimate the importance of small runs, streaks, or clusters in large samples of random data (that is, seeing phantom patterns).[12]
Confirmation bias The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.[28]
Congruence bias The tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead of testing possible alternative hypotheses.[12]
Conjunction fallacy The tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than general ones.[29]
Conservatism (belief revision) The tendency to revise one’s belief insufficiently when presented with new evidence.[5][30][31]
Continued influence effect The tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been corrected. Misinformation can still influence inferences one generates after a correction has occurred.[32] cf. Backfire effect
Contrast effect The enhancement or reduction of a certain stimulus’ perception when compared with a recently observed, contrasting object.[33]
Courtesy bias The tendency to give an opinion that is more socially correct than one’s true opinion, so as to avoid offending anyone.[34]
Curse of knowledge When better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people.[35]
Declinism The predisposition to view the past favorably (rosy retrospection) and future negatively.[36]
Decoy effect Preferences for either option A or B change in favor of option B when option C is presented, which is completely dominated by option B (inferior in all respects) and partially dominated by option A.[37]
Default effect When given a choice between several options, the tendency to favor the default one.[38]
Denomination effect The tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g., coins) rather than large amounts (e.g., bills).[39]
Disposition effect The tendency to sell an asset that has accumulated in value and resist selling an asset that has declined in value.[40]
Distinction bias The tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[41]
Dunning–Kruger effect The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.[42]
Duration neglect The neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its value.[43]
Empathy gap The tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others.[44]
Endowment effect The tendency for people to demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it.[45]
Exaggerated expectation Based on the estimates,[clarification needed] real-world evidence turns out to be less extreme than our expectations (conditionally inverse of the conservatism bias).[unreliable source?][5][46]
Experimenter’s or expectation bias The tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.[47]
Focusing effect The tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event.[48]
Forer effect or Barnum effect The observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, graphology, and some types of personality tests.[49]
Form function attribution bias In human–robot interaction, the tendency of people to make systematic errors when interacting with a robot. People may base their expectations and perceptions of a robot on its appearance (form) and attribute functions which do not necessarily mirror the true functions of the robot.[50]
Framing effect Drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented.[51]
Frequency illusion The illusion in which a word, a name, or other thing that has recently come to one’s attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards (not to be confused with the recency illusion or selection bias).[52] This illusion is sometimes referred to as the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.[53]
Functional fixedness Limits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used.[54]
Gambler’s fallacy The tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. The fallacy arises from an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large numbers. For example, “I’ve flipped heads with this coin five times consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth flip is much greater than heads.”[55]
Hard–easy effect Based on a specific level of task difficulty, the confidence in judgments is too conservative and not extreme enough.[5][56][57][58]
Hindsight bias Sometimes called the “I-knew-it-all-along” effect, the tendency to see past events as being predictable[59] at the time those events happened.
Hostile attribution bias The “hostile attribution bias” is the tendency to interpret others’ behaviors as having hostile intent, even when the behavior is ambiguous or benign.[60]
Hot-hand fallacy The “hot-hand fallacy” (also known as the “hot hand phenomenon” or “hot hand”) is the belief that a person who has experienced success with a random event has a greater chance of further success in additional attempts.
Hyperbolic discounting Discounting is the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs. Hyperbolic discounting leads to choices that are inconsistent over time – people make choices today that their future selves would prefer not to have made, despite using the same reasoning.[61] Also known as current moment bias, present-bias, and related to Dynamic inconsistency. A good example of this: a study showed that when making food choices for the coming week, 74% of participants chose fruit, whereas when the food choice was for the current day, 70% chose chocolate.
Identifiable victim effect The tendency to respond more strongly to a single identified person at risk than to a large group of people at risk.[62]
IKEA effect The tendency for people to place a disproportionately high value on objects that they partially assembled themselves, such as furniture from IKEA, regardless of the quality of the end result.[63]
Illicit transference Occurs when a term in the distributive (referring to every member of a class) and collective (referring to the class itself as a whole) sense are treated as equivalent. The two variants of this fallacy are the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of division.
Illusion of control The tendency to overestimate one’s degree of influence over other external events.[64]
Illusion of validity Belief that our judgments are accurate, especially when available information is consistent or inter-correlated.[65]
Illusory correlation Inaccurately perceiving a relationship between two unrelated events.[66][67]
Illusory truth effect A tendency to believe that a statement is true if it is easier to process, or if it has been stated multiple times, regardless of its actual veracity. These are specific cases of truthiness.
Impact bias The tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.[68]
Information bias The tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.[69]
Insensitivity to sample size The tendency to under-expect variation in small samples.
Irrational escalation The phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. Also known as the sunk cost fallacy.
Law of the instrument An over-reliance on a familiar tool or methods, ignoring or under-valuing alternative approaches. “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
Less-is-better effect The tendency to prefer a smaller set to a larger set judged separately, but not jointly.
Look-elsewhere effect An apparently statistically significant observation may have actually arisen by chance because of the size of the parameter space to be searched.
Loss aversion The disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it.[70] (see also Sunk cost effects and endowment effect).
Mere exposure effect The tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.[71]
Money illusion The tendency to concentrate on the nominal value (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.[72]
Moral credential effect The tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
Negativity bias or Negativity effect Psychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall of unpleasant memories compared with positive memories.[73][74] (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[75]
Neglect of probability The tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.[76]
Normalcy bias The refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
Not invented here Aversion to contact with or use of products, research, standards, or knowledge developed outside a group. Related to IKEA effect.
Observer-expectancy effect When a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy effect).
Omission bias The tendency to judge harmful actions (commissions) as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful inactions (omissions).[77]
Optimism bias The tendency to be over-optimistic, overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes (see also wishful thinking, valence effect, positive outcome bias).[78][79]
Ostrich effect Ignoring an obvious (negative) situation.
Outcome bias The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
Overconfidence effect Excessive confidence in one’s own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as “99% certain” turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.[5][80][81][82]
Pareidolia A vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) is perceived as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing non-existent hidden messages on records played in reverse.
Pessimism bias The tendency for some people, especially those suffering from depression, to overestimate the likelihood of negative things happening to them.
Placebo effect The belief that a medication works—even if merely a placebo.
Planning fallacy The tendency to underestimate task-completion times.[68]
Post-purchase rationalization The tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was good value.
Pro-innovation bias The tendency to have an excessive optimism towards an invention or innovation’s usefulness throughout society, while often failing to identify its limitations and weaknesses.
Projection bias The tendency to overestimate how much our future selves share one’s current preferences, thoughts and values, thus leading to sub-optimal choices.[83][84][74]
Pseudocertainty effect The tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.[85]
Reactance The urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice (see also Reverse psychology).
Reactive devaluation Devaluing proposals only because they purportedly originated with an adversary.
Recency illusion The illusion that a phenomenon one has noticed only recently is itself recent. Often used to refer to linguistic phenomena; the illusion that a word or language usage that one has noticed only recently is an innovation when it is in fact long-established (see also frequency illusion).
Regressive bias A certain state of mind wherein high values and high likelihoods are overestimated while low values and low likelihoods are underestimated.[5][86][87][unreliable source?]
Restraint bias The tendency to overestimate one’s ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
Rhyme as reason effect Rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful. A famous example being used in the O.J Simpson trial with the defense’s use of the phrase “If the gloves don’t fit, then you must acquit.”
Risk compensation / Peltzman effect The tendency to take greater risks when perceived safety increases.
Selection bias The tendency to notice something more when something causes us to be more aware of it, such as when we buy a car, we tend to notice similar cars more often than we did before. They are not suddenly more common – we just are noticing them more. Also called the Observational Selection Bias.
Selective perception The tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Semmelweis reflex The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.[31]
Sexual overperception bias / sexual underperception bias The tendency to over-/underestimate sexual interest of another person in oneself.
Social comparison bias The tendency, when making decisions, to favour potential candidates who don’t compete with one’s own particular strengths.[88]
Social desirability bias The tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours in oneself and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviours.[89]
Status quo bias The tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).[90][91]
Stereotyping Expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.
Subadditivity effect The tendency to judge probability of the whole to be less than the probabilities of the parts.[92]
Subjective validation Perception that something is true if a subject’s belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.
Surrogation Losing sight of the strategic construct that a measure is intended to represent, and subsequently acting as though the measure is the construct of interest.
Survivorship bias Concentrating on the people or things that “survived” some process and inadvertently overlooking those that didn’t because of their lack of visibility.
Time-saving bias Underestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively low speed and overestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively high speed.
Third-person effect Belief that mass communicated media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves.
Parkinson’s law of triviality The tendency to give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. Also known as bikeshedding, this bias explains why an organization may avoid specialized or complex subjects, such as the design of a nuclear reactor, and instead focus on something easy to grasp or rewarding to the average participant, such as the design of an adjacent bike shed.[93]
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.[94]
Weber–Fechner law Difficulty in comparing small differences in large quantities.
Well travelled road effect Underestimation of the duration taken to traverse oft-traveled routes and overestimation of the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.
Women are wonderful effect A tendency to associate more positive attributes with women than with men.
Zero-risk bias Preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.
Zero-sum bias A bias whereby a situation is incorrectly perceived to be like a zero-sum game (i.e., one person gains at the expense of another).

Social biases

Most of these biases are labeled as attributional biases.

Name Description
Actor-observer bias The tendency for explanations of other individuals’ behaviors to overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see also Fundamental attribution error), and for explanations of one’s own behaviors to do the opposite (that is, to overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality).
Authority bias The tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure (unrelated to its content) and be more influenced by that opinion.[95]
Cheerleader effect The tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.[96]
Defensive attribution hypothesis Attributing more blame to a harm-doer as the outcome becomes more severe or as personal or situational similarity to the victim increases.
Egocentric bias Occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would credit them with.
Extrinsic incentives bias An exception to the fundamental attribution error, when people view others as having (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsic motivations for oneself
False consensus effect The tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.[97]
Forer effect (aka Barnum effect) The tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes.
Fundamental attribution error The tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior[74] (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[75]
Group attribution error The biased belief that the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole or the tendency to assume that group decision outcomes reflect the preferences of group members, even when information is available that clearly suggests otherwise.
Halo effect The tendency for a person’s positive or negative traits to “spill over” from one personality area to another in others’ perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).[98]
Illusion of asymmetric insight People perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers’ knowledge of them.[99]
Illusion of external agency When people view self-generated preferences as instead being caused by insightful, effective and benevolent agents.
Illusion of transparency People overestimate others’ ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.
Illusory superiority Overestimating one’s desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as “Lake Wobegon effect”, “better-than-average effect”, or “superiority bias“.)[100]
Ingroup bias The tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.
Just-world hypothesis The tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s).
Moral luck The tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on the outcome of an event.
Naïve cynicism Expecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself.
Naïve realism The belief that we see reality as it really is – objectively and without bias; that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don’t are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.
Outgroup homogeneity bias Individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.[101]
Self-serving bias The tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving bias).[102]
Shared information bias Known as the tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and less time and energy discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information).[103]
System justification The tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged, sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. (See also status quo bias.)
Trait ascription bias The tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
Ultimate attribution error Similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.
Worse-than-average effect A tendency to believe ourselves to be worse than others at tasks which are difficult.[104]

Memory errors and biases

Main article: List of memory biases

In psychology and cognitive science, a memory bias is a cognitive bias that either enhances or impairs the recall of a memory (either the chances that the memory will be recalled at all, or the amount of time it takes for it to be recalled, or both), or that alters the content of a reported memory. There are many types of memory bias, including:

Name Description
Bizarreness effect Bizarre material is better remembered than common material.
Choice-supportive bias In a self-justifying manner retroactively ascribing one’s choices to be more informed than they were when they were made.
Change bias After an investment of effort in producing change, remembering one’s past performance as more difficult than it actually was.[105][unreliable source?]
Childhood amnesia The retention of few memories from before the age of four.
Conservatism or Regressive bias Tendency to remember high values and high likelihoods/probabilities/frequencies as lower than they actually were and low ones as higher than they actually were. Based on the evidence, memories are not extreme enough.[86][87]
Consistency bias Incorrectly remembering one’s past attitudes and behaviour as resembling present attitudes and behaviour.[106]
Context effect That cognition and memory are dependent on context, such that out-of-context memories are more difficult to retrieve than in-context memories (e.g., recall time and accuracy for a work-related memory will be lower at home, and vice versa).
Cross-race effect The tendency for people of one race to have difficulty identifying members of a race other than their own.
Cryptomnesia A form of misattribution where a memory is mistaken for imagination, because there is no subjective experience of it being a memory.[105]
Egocentric bias Recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g., remembering one’s exam grades as being better than they were, or remembering a caught fish as bigger than it really was.
Fading affect bias A bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.[107]
False memory A form of misattribution where imagination is mistaken for a memory.
Generation effect (Self-generation effect) That self-generated information is remembered best. For instance, people are better able to recall memories of statements that they have generated than similar statements generated by others.
Google effect The tendency to forget information that can be found readily online by using Internet search engines.
Hindsight bias The inclination to see past events as being more predictable than they actually were; also called the “I-knew-it-all-along” effect.
Humor effect That humorous items are more easily remembered than non-humorous ones, which might be explained by the distinctiveness of humor, the increased cognitive processing time to understand the humor, or the emotional arousal caused by the humor.[108]
Illusion of truth effect That people are more likely to identify as true statements those they have previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement. In other words, a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one.
Illusory correlation Inaccurately remembering a relationship between two events.[5][67]
Lag effect The phenomenon whereby learning is greater when studying is spread out over time, as opposed to studying the same amount of time in a single session. See also spacing effect.
Leveling and sharpening Memory distortions introduced by the loss of details in a recollection over time, often concurrent with sharpening or selective recollection of certain details that take on exaggerated significance in relation to the details or aspects of the experience lost through leveling. Both biases may be reinforced over time, and by repeated recollection or re-telling of a memory.[109]
Levels-of-processing effect That different methods of encoding information into memory have different levels of effectiveness.[110]
List-length effect A smaller percentage of items are remembered in a longer list, but as the length of the list increases, the absolute number of items remembered increases as well. For example, consider a list of 30 items (“L30”) and a list of 100 items (“L100”). An individual may remember 15 items from L30, or 50%, whereas the individual may remember 40 items from L100, or 40%. Although the percent of L30 items remembered (50%) is greater than the percent of L100 (40%), more L100 items (40) are remembered than L30 items (15).[111][further explanation needed]
Misinformation effect Memory becoming less accurate because of interference from post-event information.[112]
Modality effect That memory recall is higher for the last items of a list when the list items were received via speech than when they were received through writing.
Mood-congruent memory bias The improved recall of information congruent with one’s current mood.
Next-in-line effect People taking turns speaking in a group tend to have diminished recall for the words of others[clarify] who spoke immediately before them.[113]
Part-list cueing effect That being shown some items from a list and later retrieving one item causes it to become harder to retrieve the other items.[114]
Peak-end rule That people seem to perceive not the sum of an experience but the average of how it was at its peak (e.g., pleasant or unpleasant) and how it ended.
Persistence The unwanted recurrence of memories of a traumatic event.[citation needed]
Picture superiority effect The notion that concepts that are learned by viewing pictures are more easily and frequently recalled than are concepts that are learned by viewing their written word form counterparts.[115][116][117][118][119][120]
Positivity effect (Socioemotional selectivity theory) That older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.
Primacy effect, recency effect & serial position effect That items near the end of a sequence are the easiest to recall, followed by the items at the beginning of a sequence; items in the middle are the least likely to be remembered.[121]
Processing difficulty effect That information that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processed with more difficulty) is more easily remembered.[122]
Reminiscence bump The recalling of more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than personal events from other lifetime periods.[123]
Rosy retrospection The remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.
Self-relevance effect That memories relating to the self are better recalled than similar information relating to others.
Source confusion Confusing episodic memories with other information, creating distorted memories.[124]
Spacing effect That information is better recalled if exposure to it is repeated over a long span of time rather than a short one.
Spotlight effect The tendency to overestimate the amount that other people notice your appearance or behavior.
Stereotypical bias Memory distorted towards stereotypes (e.g., racial or gender).
Suffix effect Diminishment of the recency effect because a sound item is appended to the list that the subject is not required to recall.[125][126]
Suggestibility A form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.
Tachypsychia When time perceived by the individual either lengthens, making events appear to slow down, or contracts.[127]
Telescoping effect The tendency to displace recent events backward in time and remote events forward in time, so that recent events appear more remote, and remote events, more recent.
Testing effect The fact that you more easily remember information you have read by rewriting it instead of rereading it.[128]
Tip of the tongue phenomenon When a subject is able to recall parts of an item, or related information, but is frustratingly unable to recall the whole item. This is thought to be an instance of “blocking” where multiple similar memories are being recalled and interfere with each other.[105]
Travis Syndrome Overestimating the significance of the present.[129] It is related to the enlightenment Idea of Progress and chronological snobbery with possibly an appeal to novelty logical fallacy being part of the bias.
Verbatim effect That the “gist” of what someone has said is better remembered than the verbatim wording.[130] This is because memories are representations, not exact copies.
von Restorff effect That an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered than other items.[131]
Zeigarnik effect That uncompleted or interrupted tasks are remembered better than completed ones.

Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases

A 2012 Psychological Bulletin article suggested that at least eight seemingly unrelated biases can be produced by the same information-theoretic generative mechanism that assumes noisy information processing during storage and retrieval of information in human memory.[5]

Individual differences in decision making biases

People do appear to have stable individual differences in their susceptibility to decision biases such as overconfidence, temporal discounting, and bias blind spot.[134] That said, these stable levels of bias within individuals are possible to change. Participants in experiments who watched training videos and played debiasing games showed medium to large reductions both immediately and up to three months later in the extent to which they exhibited susceptibility to six cognitive biases: anchoring, bias blind spot, confirmation bias, fundamental attribution error, projection bias, and representativeness.[135]

Debiasing

Debiasing is the reduction of biases in judgment and decision making through incentives, nudges, and training. Cognitive bias mitigation and cognitive bias modification are forms of debiasing specifically applicable to cognitive biases and their effects.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Further References

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions.. Psychological Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.582
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Oechssler, J., Roider, A., & Schmitz, P. W.. (2009). Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.04.018
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B.. (2010). Probabilistic models of cognition: exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.004
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F.. (2008). On the Relative Independence of Thinking Biases and Cognitive Ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Hallion, L. S., & Ruscio, A. M.. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Cognitive Bias Modification on Anxiety and Depression. Psychological Bulletin

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/a0024355
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Gigerenzer, G.. (1991). How to make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond “Heuristics and Biases”. European Review of Social Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/14792779143000033
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Roiser, J. P., Elliott, R., & Sahakian, B. J.. (2012). Cognitive mechanisms of treatment in depression. Neuropsychopharmacology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1038/npp.2011.183
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Haselton, M. G., Nettle, D., & Andrews, P. W.. (2015). The Evolution of Cognitive Bias. In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1002/9780470939376.ch25
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D.. (2006). The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_3
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Croskerry, P.. (2003). The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic Medicine

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Bertrand, M., & Morse, A.. (2011). Information Disclosure, Cognitive Biases, and Payday Borrowing. Journal of Finance

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01698.x
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Ioannidis, J. P. A., Munafò, M. R., Fusar-Poli, P., Nosek, B. A., & David, S. P.. (2014). Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: Detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.010
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Montibeller, G., & von Winterfeldt, D.. (2015). Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/risa.12360
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Douglas, C., Bateson, M., Walsh, C., Bédué, A., & Edwards, S. A.. (2012). Environmental enrichment induces optimistic cognitive biases in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.018
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Greenwald, A. G.. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.603
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Bateson, M., Desire, S., Gartside, S. E., & Wright, G. A.. (2011). Agitated honeybees exhibit pessimistic cognitive biases. Current Biology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.017
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Peters, E. R., Moritz, S., Schwannauer, M., Wiseman, Z., Greenwood, K. E., Scott, J., … Garety, P. A.. (2014). Cognitive biases questionnaire for psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbs199
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Hoppe, E. I., & Kusterer, D. J.. (2011). Behavioral biases and cognitive reflection. Economics Letters

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2010.11.015
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Marshall, J. A. R., Trimmer, P. C., Houston, A. I., & McNamara, J. M.. (2013). On evolutionary explanations of cognitive biases. Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.013
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S.. (2013). Cognitive debiasing 1: Origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Quality and Safety

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S.. (1999). Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An integratwe perspective. Journal of Management Studies

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00157
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Gudmundsson, S. V., & Lechner, C.. (2013). Cognitive biases, organization, and entrepreneurial firm survival. European Management Journal

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2013.01.001
DOI URL
directSciHub download