Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive Bias

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior

Definition

Cognitive bias refers to a systematic (that is, nonrandom and, thus, predictable) deviation from rationality in judgment or decision-making.

Introduction

Most traditional views on human cognition propose that people tend to optimality when making choices and judgments. According to this view, which has been pervasive in many cognitive sciences (particularly Psychology and Economics), people behave like rational, close-to-optimal agents, capable of solving simple as well as complex cognitive problems, and to maximize the rewards they can obtain from their interactions with the environment. Generally, a rational agent would weight potential costs and benefits of their actions, eventually choosing the option that is overall more favorable. This involves taking into consideration all the information that is relevant for solving the problem, while leaving out any irrelevant information that could contaminate the decision (Stanovich 1999). Whole research areas in social sciences...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108(4), 441–485. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.108.4.441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins. doi:10.5465/AMP.2009.37008011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D. (2009, August). The end of rational economics. Hardvard Business Review,87(7), 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106. doi:10.1162/00335530360535153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44(3), 211–233. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(80)90046-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336–372. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco, F. (2016). Positive and negative implications of the causal illusion. Consciousness and Cognition. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2016.08.012.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bleske-Rechek, A., Nelson, L. A., Baker, J. P., Remiker, M. W., & Brandt, S. J. (2010). Evolution and the trolley problem: People save five over one unless the one is young, genetically related, or a romantic partner. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4(3), 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A., Foucart, A., Arnon, I., Aparici, M., & Apesteguia, J. (2014). “Piensa” twice: On the foreign language effect in decision making. Cognition, 130(2), 236–254. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 47–66. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 211–237. doi:10.1037/a0025940.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C. Q., & Purves, D. (2005). The Müller-Lyer illusion explained by the statistics of image-source relationships. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(4), 1234–1239. doi:10.1073/pnas.0409314102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2012). Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government (Working Paper No. 307). New Haven: Yale Law School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720. doi:10.1037/ 0003-066X.58.9.697.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311–328. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 316–337). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390–398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Obermaier, M., Koch, T., & Baden, C. (2015). Everybody follows the crowd? Effects of opinion polls and past election results on electoral preferences. Journal of Media Psychology, 1–12. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yechiam, E., Druyan, M., & Ert, E. (2008). Observing others’ behavior and risk taking in decisions from experience. Judgment and Decision making, 3(7), 493–500.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

    Fernando Blanco

Authors
  1. Fernando Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando Blanco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oakland University , Rochester, Michigan, USA

    Jennifer Vonk

  2. Department of Psychology, Oakland University Department of Psychology, Rochester, Michigan, USA

    Todd Shackelford

Section Editor information

  1. Hofstra University, Long Island, USA

    Oskar Pineno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Blanco, F. (2017). Cognitive Bias. In: Vonk, J., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1244-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1244-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47829-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47829-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation