DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantifying the Association of Self-Enhancement Bias with Self- Ratings of Personality and Life Satisfaction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantifying the Association of Self-Enhancement Bias with Self- Ratings of Personality and Life Satisfaction Dieses Dokument ist eine Zweitveröffentlichung (Verlagsversion) / This is a self-archiving document (published version): Daniel Leising, Kenneth D. Locke, Elena Kurzius, Johannes Zimmermann Quantifying the Association of Self-Enhancement Bias With Self- Ratings of Personality and Life Satisfaction Erstveröffentlichung in / First published in: Assessment. 2016, 23(5), S. 588 – 602 [Zugriff am: 13.08.2019]. SAGE journals. ISSN 1552-3489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115590852 Diese Version ist verfügbar / This version is available on: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa2-354309 „Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFGgeförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.“ This publication is openly accessible with the permission of the copyright owner. The permission is granted within a nationwide license, supported by the German Research Foundation (abbr. in German DFG). www.nationallizenzen.de/ 590852 ASMXXX10.1177/1073191115590852AssessmentLeising et al. research-article2015 Article Assessment 2016, Vol. 23(5) 588 –602 Quantifying the Association of © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Self-Enhancement Bias With Self-Ratings of DOI: 10.1177/1073191115590852 Personality and Life Satisfaction asm.sagepub.com Daniel Leising1, Kenneth D. Locke2, Elena Kurzius1,3, and Johannes Zimmermann4 Abstract Kwan, John, Kenny, Bond, and Robins conceptualize self-enhancement as a favorable comparison of self-judgments with judgments of and by others. Applying a modified version of Kwan et al.’s approach to behavior observation data, we show that the resulting measure of self-enhancement bias is highly reliable, predicts self-ratings of intelligence as well as does actual intelligence, interacts with item desirability in predicting responses to questionnaire items, and also predicts general life satisfaction. Consistent with previous research, however, self-ratings of intelligence did not become more valid when controlling for self-enhancement bias. We also show that common personality scales like the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale reflect self-enhancement at least as strongly as do scales that were designed particularly for that purpose (i.e., “social desirability scales”). The relevance of these findings in regard to the validity and utility of social desirability scales is discussed. Keywords social desirability, self-enhancement bias, self-report, social relations model, perceiver, target, evaluation The Problem of Socially Desirable Responding determine how strongly it affects the self-report scales that are typically used in psychological research. Most studies in the field of personality research rely exclu- sively on self-report measures (Vazire, 2006). For decades, one of the reasons why this approach to personality assess- Aims of the Present Study ment has been criticized is the suspicion that people who In this study, we present an approach for measuring socially respond to questionnaires may tend to portray themselves in desirable responding that is strongly inspired by an impor- overly positive ways. More important, the extent to which tant conceptual contribution by Kwan, John, Kenny, Bond, people portray themselves in overly positive or negative and Robins (2004). Their work is presented below, along ways may differ (John & Robins, 1994). Terms like “self- with a few important methodological modifications that we enhancement/-derogation” or “socially (un-)desirable undertook in the present study. After introducing our responding” are often used when referring to such interindi- method, we investigate the characteristics of the resulting vidual differences. They denote the extent to which a person measure of socially desirable responding in several description implies a positive—or a negative—evaluation important regards, using an empirical data set. In particular, of a target person that is not justified by how the person we ask (a) whether the measure is reliable, (b) whether it “actually is,” but rather lies in the eye of the beholder. actually measures bias as opposed to “actual behavior,” (c) Socially (un-)desirable responding may be a problem in at whether it shows the properties of a moderator or least two ways: First, it may weaken the criterion validity of measures. For example, selection procedures may favor 1 targets who present themselves better over targets who Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany 2University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA actually “are” better. Second, it may weaken the discrimi- 3Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany nant validity of measures by inducing correlations that only 4Universität Kassel, Kassel, Germany reflect the shared susceptibility of different measures to the Corresponding Author: same bias, rather than actual associations between the Daniel Leising, Department of Psychology, Technische Universität targets’ traits. For these reasons, it is important to make Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany. socially desirable responding itself measurable, and to Email: [email protected] Leising et al. 589 suppressor variable impairing validity, (d) to what extent scales, despite being common, is still lacking empirical sup- self-reports of personality and life satisfaction are port. Other authors, however, challenged such conclusions, “contaminated” with this bias, (e) to what extent so-called presenting evidence that some of the scales devised to “lie scales” or “social desirability scales” reflect the bias assess response styles do react in predictable ways when (which they are supposed to), and (f) to what extent associa- participants are instructed to “fake good” or “fake bad” tions between the bias and self-reports of personality are (e.g., Baity, Siefert, Chambers, & Blais, 2007; Morey & moderated by the evaluativeness of the items that are used Lanier, 1998), that such effects may in fact be accompanied for assessing the latter. All of these are crucial issues that by decreases in predictor–criterion correlations (J. L. have featured in the literature on socially desirable respond- Anderson, Sellbom, Wygant, & Edens, 2013), and that in ing for decades. To foster the reader’s understanding of some instances the partialling out of lie scales does improve these issues, we will now present a brief overview of this validity (e.g., Rohling et al., 2011). The dispute has not literature, and of the major points of empirical and concep- been ultimately resolved yet, and the debate continues (e.g., tual progress therein. McGrath, Kim, & Hough, 2011; Morey, 2012). The issue is complicated by the fact that “faking” research addresses Overview of the Literature only intentional response distortions whereas socially desir- able responding may come about both intentionally and McCrae and Costa (1983; cf. Wiggins, 1973) used the terms unintentionally (Paulhus, 1984; Sackeim & Gur, 1979). In substance and style to distinguish the target’s actual charac- the present article, we will not attempt to resolve this issue, teristics (= substance) from the positive or negative presen- but rather will introduce and test a novel method of tation of those characteristics (= style). Indisputably, people measuring self-enhancement bias (SEB) that goes beyond differ in how socially desirable their actual behaviors are mere self-report. (Hofstee & Hendriks, 1998). In contrast, socially desirable Paulhus (2002) emphasized that accurately assessing responding (e.g., to a questionnaire) is a style issue: It con- the style component of a person judgment is only possible cerns the evaluative “spin” that is present in how the target’s if a measure of the target’s “true” features (= substance) is personality is presented. Most person judgments probably available. The extent to which a perceiver deviates from incorporate both substance and style. that truth in his or her description of a target would then be Early attempts at identifying persons who tend to overes- interpretable as bias. If no such criterion variable is avail- timate their virtues and underestimate their weaknesses able, the relative extent to which a measure reflects sub- used so-called “lie scales” or “social desirability scales” stance versus style has to remain unclear. Paulhus and (e.g., Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). In these scales, respon- John (1998) used judgments by their targets’ acquain- dents are presented with lists of personality features that are tances as measures of the targets’ actual personalities and either desirable but rare, or undesirable but common. Self- interpreted the residuals from linear regressions of the reports of persons who systematically endorse the first but targets’ self-ratings on these informant-ratings in terms of deny the second kind of personality features in their self- bias. In the present study, we use a similar approach (see descriptions are identified as biased because such response below). patterns are considered “too good to be true.” Lie scales are Important conceptual progress was also made with a supposed to capture style, but not substance. If this was paper by Kwan et al. (2004), who pointed out that overly what they did, then using a lie scale as a covariate should positive (or negative) self-descriptions may reflect either of improve the correlation between self-ratings and criterion two comparisons: First, the targets’ self-ratings may be variables (e.g., other-ratings), because then the targets’ ten- more (or less) positive or negative than the same targets’ dencies
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization
    A Task-based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization Evanthia Dimara, Steven Franconeri, Catherine Plaisant, Anastasia Bezerianos, and Pierre Dragicevic Three kinds of limitations The Computer The Display 2 Three kinds of limitations The Computer The Display The Human 3 Three kinds of limitations: humans • Human vision ️ has limitations • Human reasoning 易 has limitations The Human 4 ️Perceptual bias Magnitude estimation 5 ️Perceptual bias Magnitude estimation Color perception 6 易 Cognitive bias Behaviors when humans consistently behave irrationally Pohl’s criteria distilled: • Are predictable and consistent • People are unaware they’re doing them • Are not misunderstandings 7 Ambiguity effect, Anchoring or focalism, Anthropocentric thinking, Anthropomorphism or personification, Attentional bias, Attribute substitution, Automation bias, Availability heuristic, Availability cascade, Backfire effect, Bandwagon effect, Base rate fallacy or Base rate neglect, Belief bias, Ben Franklin effect, Berkson's paradox, Bias blind spot, Choice-supportive bias, Clustering illusion, Compassion fade, Confirmation bias, Congruence bias, Conjunction fallacy, Conservatism (belief revision), Continued influence effect, Contrast effect, Courtesy bias, Curse of knowledge, Declinism, Decoy effect, Default effect, Denomination effect, Disposition effect, Distinction bias, Dread aversion, Dunning–Kruger effect, Duration neglect, Empathy gap, End-of-history illusion, Endowment effect, Exaggerated expectation, Experimenter's or expectation bias,
    [Show full text]
  • Ilidigital Master Anton 2.Indd
    services are developed to be used by humans. Thus, understanding humans understanding Thus, humans. by used be to developed are services obvious than others but certainly not less complex. Most products bioengineering, and as shown in this magazine. Psychology mightbusiness world. beBe it more the comparison to relationships, game elements, or There are many non-business flieds which can betransfered to the COGNTIVE COGNTIVE is key to a succesfully develop a product orservice. is keytoasuccesfullydevelopproduct BIASES by ANTON KOGER The Power of Power The //PsychologistatILI.DIGITAL WE EDIT AND REINFORCE SOME WE DISCARD SPECIFICS TO WE REDUCE EVENTS AND LISTS WE STORE MEMORY DIFFERENTLY BASED WE NOTICE THINGS ALREADY PRIMED BIZARRE, FUNNY, OR VISUALLY WE NOTICE WHEN WE ARE DRAWN TO DETAILS THAT WE NOTICE FLAWS IN OTHERS WE FAVOR SIMPLE-LOOKING OPTIONS MEMORIES AFTER THE FACT FORM GENERALITIES TO THEIR KEY ELEMENTS ON HOW THEY WERE EXPERIENCED IN MEMORY OR REPEATED OFTEN STRIKING THINGS STICK OUT MORE SOMETHING HAS CHANGED CONFIRM OUR OWN EXISTING BELIEFS MORE EASILY THAN IN OURSELVES AND COMPLETE INFORMATION way we see situations but also the way we situationsbutalsotheway wesee way the biasesnotonlychange Furthermore, overload. cognitive avoid attention, ore situations, guide help todesign massively can This in. take people information of kind explainhowandwhat ofperception egory First,biasesinthecat andappraisal. ory, self,mem perception, into fourcategories: roughly bedivided Cognitive biasescan within thesesituations. forusers interaction andeasy in anatural situationswhichresults sible toimprove itpos and adaptingtothesebiasesmakes ingiven situations.Reacting ways certain act sively helpstounderstandwhypeople mas into consideration biases ing cognitive Tak humanbehavior. topredict likely less or andmore relevant illusionsare cognitive In each situation different every havior day.
    [Show full text]
  • Infographic I.10
    The Digital Health Revolution: Leaving No One Behind The global AI in healthcare market is growing fast, with an expected increase from $4.9 billion in 2020 to $45.2 billion by 2026. There are new solutions introduced every day that address all areas: from clinical care and diagnosis, to remote patient monitoring to EHR support, and beyond. But, AI is still relatively new to the industry, and it can be difficult to determine which solutions can actually make a difference in care delivery and business operations. 59 Jan 2021 % of Americans believe returning Jan-June 2019 to pre-coronavirus life poses a risk to health and well being. 11 41 % % ...expect it will take at least 6 The pandemic has greatly increased the 65 months before things get number of US adults reporting depression % back to normal (updated April and/or anxiety.5 2021).4 Up to of consumers now interested in telehealth going forward. $250B 76 57% of providers view telehealth more of current US healthcare spend % favorably than they did before COVID-19.7 could potentially be virtualized.6 The dramatic increase in of Medicare primary care visits the conducted through 90% $3.5T telehealth has shown longevity, with rates in annual U.S. health expenditures are for people with chronic and mental health conditions. since April 2020 0.1 43.5 leveling off % % Most of these can be prevented by simple around 30%.8 lifestyle changes and regular health screenings9 Feb. 2020 Apr. 2020 OCCAM’S RAZOR • CONJUNCTION FALLACY • DELMORE EFFECT • LAW OF TRIVIALITY • COGNITIVE FLUENCY • BELIEF BIAS • INFORMATION BIAS Digital health ecosystems are transforming• AMBIGUITY BIAS • STATUS medicineQUO BIAS • SOCIAL COMPARISONfrom BIASa rea• DECOYctive EFFECT • REACTANCEdiscipline, • REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY • SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION • BACKFIRE EFFECT • ENDOWMENT EFFECT • PROCESSING DIFFICULTY EFFECT • PSEUDOCERTAINTY EFFECT • DISPOSITION becoming precise, preventive,EFFECT • ZERO-RISK personalized, BIAS • UNIT BIAS • IKEA EFFECT and • LOSS AVERSION participatory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Psychology of Competition: a Social Comparison Perspective
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 11-2013 The Psychology of Competition: A Social Comparison Perspective Stephen M. Garcia Avishalom Tor Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Tyrone M. Schiff Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Behavior and Behavior Mechanisms Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Stephen M. Garcia, Avishalom Tor & Tyrone M. Schiff, The Psychology of Competition: A Social Comparison Perspective, 8 Persp on Psych Sci 634 (2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/941 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PPSXXX10.1177/1745691613504114Garcia et al.Psychology of Competition 504114research-article2013 Perspectives on Psychological Science XX(X) 1 –17 The Psychology of Competition: © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav A Social Comparison Perspective DOI: 10.1177/1745691613504114 pps.sagepub.com Stephen M. Garcia1, Avishalom Tor2, and Tyrone M. Schiff1 1University of Michigan and 2University of Notre Dame Abstract Social comparison—the tendency to self-evaluate by comparing ourselves to others—is an important source of competitive behavior. We propose a new model that distinguishes between individual and situational factors that increase social comparison and thus lead to a range of competitive attitudes and behavior. Individual factors are those that vary from person to person: the relevance of the performance dimension, the similarity of rivals, and their relationship closeness to the individual, as well as the various individual differences variables relating to social comparison more generally.
    [Show full text]
  • John Collins, President, Forensic Foundations Group
    On Bias in Forensic Science National Commission on Forensic Science – May 12, 2014 56-year-old Vatsala Thakkar was a doctor in India but took a job as a convenience store cashier to help pay family expenses. She was stabbed to death outside her store trying to thwart a theft in November 2008. Bloody Footwear Impression Bloody Tire Impression What was the threat? 1. We failed to ask ourselves if this was a footwear impression. 2. The appearance of the impression combined with the investigator’s interpretation created prejudice. The accuracy of our analysis became threatened by our prejudice. Types of Cognitive Bias Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases | Accessed on April 14, 2014 Anchoring or focalism Hindsight bias Pseudocertainty effect Illusory superiority Levels-of-processing effect Attentional bias Hostile media effect Reactance Ingroup bias List-length effect Availability heuristic Hot-hand fallacy Reactive devaluation Just-world phenomenon Misinformation effect Availability cascade Hyperbolic discounting Recency illusion Moral luck Modality effect Backfire effect Identifiable victim effect Restraint bias Naive cynicism Mood-congruent memory bias Bandwagon effect Illusion of control Rhyme as reason effect Naïve realism Next-in-line effect Base rate fallacy or base rate neglect Illusion of validity Risk compensation / Peltzman effect Outgroup homogeneity bias Part-list cueing effect Belief bias Illusory correlation Selective perception Projection bias Peak-end rule Bias blind spot Impact bias Semmelweis
    [Show full text]
  • Implicit Bias and Moral Analysis: Continuing to Traverse the Moral Terrain of Community Development
    Implicit Bias and Moral Analysis: Continuing to Traverse the Moral Terrain of Community Development Peter A. DePergola II, Ph.D., M.T.S. Director of Clinical Ethics, Baystate Health Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School Assistant Professor of Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Elms College Director, Center for Ethics, Religion, and Culture, Elms College Adjunct Assistant Professor of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine Research Scientist in Neuroethics, American Academy of Neurology Research Scholar in Bioethics, TEDMED Objectives • Identify the relevant questions of moral analysis and moral reasoning in the context of community development. • Examine sources of implicit bias in the context of distributing limited goods. • Discuss methods by which to identify and remedy implicit bias in the context of serving others. • Distinguish between caring for a person with needs and caring for the needs a person has. Relevant Questions of Moral Analysis • “What?” (Veracity) • “Why?” and “How?” (Beneficence, Nonmaleficence) • “Who?” (Dignity, Autonomy) • “When?” and “Where?” (Justice, Privacy, Confidentiality) • “What if…?” (Prudence) • “What else?” (Fidelity, Courage) Relevant Questions of Moral Reasoning 1. What are we attempting to do? (Is our plan for serving persons in need ethically, legally, and practically reasonable?) 2. Why are we attempting to do it? (Is our plan for serving persons in need focused on the overall well-being of those in need?) 3. How are we attempting to do it? (Is the method of serving persons in need proportionate to the goals we had for serving them in the first place?) 4. What do we intend in attempting to do it? (Is our plan for serving persons in need emerging from a place of benevolence?) 5.
    [Show full text]
  • To Err Is Human, but Smaller Funds Can Succeed by Mitigating Cognitive Bias
    FEATURE | SMALLER FUNDS CAN SUCCEED BY MITIGATING COGNITIVE BIAS To Err Is Human, but Smaller Funds Can Succeed by Mitigating Cognitive Bias By Bruce Curwood, CIMA®, CFA® he evolution of investment manage­ 2. 2000–2008: Acknowledgement, where Diversification meant simply expanding the ment has been a long and painful plan sponsors discovered the real portfolio beyond domestic markets into T experience for many institutional meaning of risk. less­correlated foreign equities and return plan sponsors. It’s been trial by fire and 3. Post­2009: Action, which resulted in a was a simple function of increasing the risk learning important lessons the hard way, risk revolution. (more equity, increased leverage, greater generally from past mistakes. However, foreign currency exposure, etc.). After all, “risk” doesn’t have to be a four­letter word Before 2000, modern portfolio theory, history seemed to show that equities and (!@#$). In fact, in case you haven’t noticed, which was developed in the 1950s and excessive risk taking outperformed over the there is currently a revolution going on 1960s, was firmly entrenched in academia long term. In short, the crux of the problem in our industry. Most mega funds (those but not as well understood by practitioners, was the inequitable amount of time and well­governed funds in excess of $10 billion whose focus was largely on optimizing effort that investors spent on return over under management) already have moved return. The efficient market hypothesis pre­ risk, and that correlation and causality were to a more comprehensive risk management vailed along with the rationality of man, supposedly closely linked.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Biases in Fitness to Practise Decision-Making
    ADVICE ON BIASES IN FITNESS TO PRACTISE DECISION-MAKING IN ACCEPTED OUTCOME VERSUS PANEL MODELS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AUTHORITY Prepared by: LESLIE CUTHBERT Date: 31 March 2021 Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 2 Background .................................................................................................. 2 Purpose of the advice.................................................................................... 3 Summary of conclusions ................................................................................ 4 Documents considered .................................................................................. 4 Technical terms and explanations ................................................................... 5 Disclaimer .................................................................................................... 5 II. How biases might affect the quality of decision-making in the AO model, as compared to the panel model .............................................................................. 6 Understanding cognitive biases in fitness to practise decision-making ............... 6 Individual Decision Maker (e.g. a Case Examiner) in AO model ......................... 8 Multiple Case Examiners .............................................................................. 17 Group Decision Maker in a Panel model of 3 or more members ....................... 22 III. Assessment of the impact of these biases,
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Behavioralism Seriously: the Problem of Market Manipulation
    TAKING BEHAVIORALISM SERIOUSLY: THE PROBLEM OF MARKET MANIPULATION JON D. HANSON* & DOUGLAS A. KYSAR** In recent years, legal scholars dissatisfied with the behavioral assumptions of the rationalactor model have increasingly turned to the findings of cognitive psycholo- gists and decision theorists to enhance the accuracy of efficiency analysis. Jon Hanson and Douglas Kysar review those findings in this Article, concluding that scholars have been well justified in incorporating the behaviorallst account of human behavior into law and economics. Nevertheless, Hanson and Kysar argue that those scholars simultaneously have failed to take the findings of behavioral researchto their logical conclusion. Using the scholarly application of behavioral- ist insights to products liability theory as an example, the authors demonstrate that legal scholars thus far have treated cognitive anomalies as relatively fixed and independent influences on individualdecisionmaking. Rather than such an exoge- nous analysis, Hanson and Kysar advocate an endogenous examination of behavi- oralistfindings that allows for internal, dynamic effects of cognitive biases within the decisionmaking model. By recognizing that cognitive anomalies influence not only the behavior of biased decisionmakers but also the incentives of other eco- nomic actors, Hanson and Kysar reveal the possibility of market manipulation- that is, the possibility that market outcomes can be influenced, if not determined, by the ability of one actor to control the format of information, the framing and pres- entation of choices, and, more generally, the setting within which market transac- tions occur. Again using the field of products liability theory as an example, the authors argue that such market manipulation will come to characterize consumer product markets; powerful economic incentives will drive manufacturers to engage in practices that, whether consciously or not, utilize non-rationalconsumer tenden- cies to influence consumer preferences and perceptionsfor gain.
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Information ) Energy Cons
    Before the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Re: Request for Information ) Energy Conservation Program: ) Energy Conservation Standards for ) EERE–2017–BT–STD–0003 Consumer Refrigerators, ) Refrigerator Freezers, and Freezers ) Comments of Consumer Federation of America Mark Cooper Mel Hall-Crawford Director of Research Director of Energy Programs FEBRUARY 13, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 1 A. Organizational Background of the Consumer Federation of America Relevant to the Above Captioned Proceeding B. A Pragmatic Consumer Approach to Setting Standards C. Outline 2. A LOOK AT THE REAL WORLD: THE TRACK RECORD OF APPLIANCE ENERGY 4 EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. Simple Trends B. CFA’s Econometric Analysis of Appliances C. Prices D. The Benefits of Energy Efficiency Standard: Trump’s Two Trillion Dollar Mistake E. Low Income Consumers 1. Simple Mathematics of Income and Energy Consumption 2. Vulnerability to Market Imperfections 3. Exposure to Externalities 3. COMPREHENSIVE, MARKET FAILURE EXPLANATIONS OF THE EFFICIENCY GAP 17 A. The Efficiency Gap 1. The LBL Framework 2. The Resources for the Future Framework 3. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization B. Empirical Evidence of Market Barriers and Imperfections 1. Market Imperfections 2. Positive Externalities 3. Information and Behavior 4. Market Structure and Transaction Costs 4. STANDARDS AS A RESPONSE TO MARKET FAILURE 27 A. Rigorous Cost Benefit Analysis B. Standards as a Policy Response 1. Traditional Market Failures 2. Positive Externalities 3. Endemic Information and Behavior 4. Market Structure and Transaction Costs 5. COMMAND-BUT-NOT-CONTROL STANDARDS 31 A. Key Characteristics of Well-Crafted Performance Standards 1.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Cognitive Biases
    Appendix A: List of Cognitive Biases Name Description Ambiguity effect The tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem “unknown.” 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 that we acquire on that subject). Anthropomorphism The tendency to characterize animals, objects, and abstract concepts as possessing human-like traits, emotions, and intention. Attentional bias The tendency of our perception to be affected by our recurring thoughts. Automation bias The tendency to excessively depend on automated systems which can lead to erroneous automated information overriding correct decisions. Availability heuristic The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater “availability” in memory, which can be 325 Appendix A: (Continued ) Name Description influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be. 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”). Backfire effect When people react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening their belief. Bandwagon effect The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior. Base rate fallacy or The tendency to ignore base rate Base rate neglect information (generic, general information) and focus on specific information (information only pertaining to a certain case). Belief bias An effect where someone’s evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Biases: an Alphabetical List
    COGNITIVE BIASES: AN ALPHABETICAL LIST Adaptive bias With limited information, decisions are based around the costs of being wrong. Affect Heuristic A mental shortcut relying on emotion rather than logical thought Ambiguity Aversion Preferring known risks over unknown risks Anchor When individuals rely heavily on an initial piece of information, known as the "anchor", when making decisions. Association Bias see Illusory Superiority Attribution effect See Fundamental attribution error Authority Bias Tendency to give greater credence to the opinion of an authority figure, and be more influenced by them, regardless of their expertise. Availability heuristic People create a picture of the world using the examples that most easily come to mind – the vivid, emotional or unusual. Base-Rate fallacy The tendency to ignore ‘base’ or general information and focus on specific information. Black Swan Highly significant events that affect your life, your career, your company, your country. There are positive and negative Black Swans. Cognitive Biases: An alphabetical list Cherry-picking Selecting and showcasing the most attractive features and hiding the rest. Clustering illusion Overestimating the importance of small patterns in large samples of random data. Cognitive Dissonance Having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes and how the mind rationalises these inconsistencies Coincidence See Subjective Validation Confirmation Bias Interpreting information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. Conjunction Fallacy Assumption that specific conditions are more probable than general ones. Contrast Effect How perceptions change in relation to contrasting objects. Correspondence bias See Fundamental attribution error Default Effect When given a choice between, people tend to favour the default option. Dunning–Kruger effect Unskilled individuals overestimate their abilities while experts underestimate theirs.
    [Show full text]