Cognitive Biases
Systematic patterns of deviation from rationality in judgment, often a result of using heuristics, mental shortcuts that simplify decision-making.
Confirmation Bias: The tendency to favor information that confirms pre-existing beliefs and disregard information that contradicts them.
- A student who believes caffeine improves focus only notices times they study well after drinking coffee and ignores times they struggle.
Theoretical Background
Normative and Descriptive Models
- Normative Models describe "ideal" decision-making, assuming rationality and access to all relevant information.
- Descriptive Models explain real-life decision-making, incorporating heuristics and biases, which reflect human limitations in processing information.
Dual Process Theory (Kahneman, 2003)
- System 1 Thinking: Fast, intuitive, and automatic thinking. Quick, emotional, relies on heuristics, evolved for survival but prone to errors.
- System 2 Thinking: Slow, analytical, and deliberate reasoning. Logical, reflective, overrides System 1 when resources and time permit.
Key Studies
Confirmation Bias
Confirmation Bias
The inclination to seek, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms existing beliefs.
Wason (1968)
Aim: To investigate confirmation bias in logical reasoning.
Method: Participants were presented with four cards, each showing a number or a letter. They were tasked with testing the rule: "If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other."
Results: Most participants selected cards that could confirm the rule rather than those that could disprove it.
Conclusion: This bias reflects the preference for evidence that supports one's beliefs, ignoring contradictory information.
Framing Effect
Framing Effect
Decisions are influenced by whether options are presented as gains or losses.
Tversky and Kahneman (1981)
Aim: To explore how framing affects decision-making under risk.
Method: Participants were divided into two groups and presented with hypothetical scenarios about saving lives during a disease outbreak. Options were framed in terms of gains (lives saved) or losses (lives lost).
Results:
- Gain frame: 72% chose the risk-averse option (200 lives saved).
- Loss frame: 78% chose the risk-seeking option (1/3 chance to save 600 lives).
Conclusion: The framing of outcomes significantly influences decisions, demonstrating a deviation from rational choice theory.
