{ "schemaVersion": "1.0.0", "releaseVersion": "2026.08.18", "updatedAt": "2026-08-18", "sets": [ { "slug": "work-project-decisions", "title": "Work & project decisions", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when a team is choosing a direction, interpreting results, deciding whether to continue, or turning metrics into action.", "contextSlug": "work-project-decisions", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/work-project-decisions/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/work-project-decisions/", "scenarioCount": 6, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "work-project-decisions-1", "prompt": "In work & project decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “What evidence would make us abandon or materially change the preferred explanation?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "answerTitle": "Confirmation Bias", "question": "What evidence would make us abandon or materially change the preferred explanation?", "evidenceStatus": "well established, broad construct", "qualification": "Confirmation bias is an umbrella label for several ways existing beliefs or hypotheses can influence information search and interpretation. It should not be reduced to one behaviour such as reading only agreeable news, and a preference for confirming tests is not irrational in every task or environment.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "title": "Outcome Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "title": "Hindsight Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-83375467c08e8177", "src-c4e8734b8f1248ee" ] }, { "scenarioId": "work-project-decisions-2", "prompt": "In work & project decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “Would we rate this decision process the same way if the outcome had gone the other direction?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "answerTitle": "Outcome Bias", "question": "Would we rate this decision process the same way if the outcome had gone the other direction?", "evidenceStatus": "replicated", "qualification": "Outcome bias occurs when knowledge of a result changes how people evaluate the quality of a decision even when the information available at the time of the decision is held constant. Outcomes can still be relevant for learning, so the error is not 'never look at results'; it is using luck or hindsight as if it had been available to the original decision-maker.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "title": "Hindsight Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/" }, { "slug": "attribution-bias-moral-luck", "title": "Moral Luck", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/attribution-bias-moral-luck/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "title": "Outcome Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-f1f0400ef362aaa8", "src-1801b1347f89ef91" ] }, { "scenarioId": "work-project-decisions-3", "prompt": "In work & project decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “What did our actual pre-outcome forecast or notes say before the result became obvious?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "answerTitle": "Hindsight Bias", "question": "What did our actual pre-outcome forecast or notes say before the result became obvious?", "evidenceStatus": "robust", "qualification": "Knowing an outcome can make the outcome look more predictable in retrospect. The effect has been studied for decades and across many settings, but it does not mean that every confident explanation after an event is biased.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "title": "Escalation of Commitment", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "title": "Hindsight Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/" }, { "slug": "attribution-bias-moral-luck", "title": "Moral Luck", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/attribution-bias-moral-luck/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-6df53f947e2583fa", "src-75d0eb4cf8b10c07" ] }, { "scenarioId": "work-project-decisions-4", "prompt": "In work & project decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “Would we assign the same blame or praise if the decision-maker had the same intent, beliefs, and controllable risk but luck produced a different outcome?”", "answerSlug": "attribution-bias-moral-luck", "answerTitle": "Moral Luck", "question": "Would we assign the same blame or praise if the decision-maker had the same intent, beliefs, and controllable risk but luck produced a different outcome?", "evidenceStatus": "established moral-judgment phenomenon with multiple contributors", "qualification": "Resultant moral luck describes cases where judgments of blame, punishment, or moral evaluation differ because otherwise similar actions lead to different outcomes partly outside the agent's control. Outcome information does affect moral judgment in experiments, but the effect should not be reduced to 'people ignore intent.' Mental states, causal responsibility, belief justification, negligence, and the kind of moral judgment being asked about all matter. Some studies find that false or unjustified beliefs explain more of classic moral-luck asymmetries than the bad outcome itself, while still detecting an independent outcome effect.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/attribution-bias-moral-luck/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/attribution-bias-moral-luck/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "attribution-bias-moral-luck", "title": "Moral Luck", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/attribution-bias-moral-luck/" }, { "slug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "title": "Escalation of Commitment", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-surrogation", "title": "Surrogation", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-0539c30082b039b2", "src-295bb6762d6f7a9f", "src-0c83b7cb76f4adab" ] }, { "scenarioId": "work-project-decisions-5", "prompt": "In work & project decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “If we had not already invested anything, would we still fund the next step on its future merits?”", "answerSlug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "answerTitle": "Escalation of Commitment", "question": "If we had not already invested anything, would we still fund the next step on its future merits?", "evidenceStatus": "established, but related constructs should be separated", "qualification": "Sunk-cost effects and escalation of commitment overlap but are not interchangeable. Sunk-cost research asks whether irrecoverable prior investments influence current choices. Escalation of commitment describes persistence or additional resource allocation to a failing course of action and can also be driven by personal responsibility, self-justification, project structure, and other factors.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-surrogation", "title": "Surrogation", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "title": "Escalation of Commitment", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-644614d8919a2ee4", "src-25c242b954867ac1", "src-ec03691286f7284e" ] }, { "scenarioId": "work-project-decisions-6", "prompt": "In work & project decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “What underlying goal is this metric supposed to represent, and where can the proxy diverge from it?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-surrogation", "answerTitle": "Surrogation", "question": "What underlying goal is this metric supposed to represent, and where can the proxy diverge from it?", "evidenceStatus": "supported in strategic performance-measure settings", "qualification": "Surrogation is a domain-specific management-accounting construct: a measure that was designed to represent a strategic objective can start to be treated as though it were the objective itself. It is closely related to metric fixation and proxy problems, but those broader labels should not be treated as exact synonyms without checking the setting and mechanism.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "title": "Outcome Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-surrogation", "title": "Surrogation", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-bc1fa4e94ab0fa71", "src-dd6028af1211deb7" ] } ] }, { "slug": "forecasting-future-choices", "title": "Forecasting & future choices", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when estimating uncertainty, imagining future feelings or preferences, or reviewing forecasts after the outcome is known.", "contextSlug": "forecasting-future-choices", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/forecasting-future-choices/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/forecasting-future-choices/", "scenarioCount": 6, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "forecasting-future-choices-1", "prompt": "In forecasting & future choices, which lens does this check belong to: “Does the total probability change when the same event is unpacked into explicit possibilities?”", "answerSlug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "answerTitle": "Subadditivity Effect", "question": "Does the total probability change when the same event is unpacked into explicit possibilities?", "evidenceStatus": "established with boundary conditions", "qualification": "People often give a larger total probability when an event is unpacked into separate possibilities than when the same event is judged as one packed category. The effect is not universal: how the possibilities are described and how typical they are can change or even reverse an unpacking effect.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "title": "Subadditivity Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/" }, { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-projection-bias", "title": "Projection Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-projection-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "mixed", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-e5eecafb672bd8ed", "src-9f9930db613528b2", "src-ffae461551a5d8e7" ] }, { "scenarioId": "forecasting-future-choices-2", "prompt": "In forecasting & future choices, which lens does this check belong to: “Are the examples easy to recall because they are common, or because they are vivid, recent, or repeated?”", "answerSlug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "answerTitle": "Availability Heuristic", "question": "Are the examples easy to recall because they are common, or because they are vivid, recent, or repeated?", "evidenceStatus": "established heuristic; bias is context-dependent", "qualification": "Availability is a judgment heuristic: people can use how easily examples or scenarios come to mind when estimating frequency or probability. That shortcut is not automatically an error because memorable or accessible examples can correlate with real frequency. Bias appears when accessibility is driven by factors that are not diagnostic of the quantity being judged.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-projection-bias", "title": "Projection Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-projection-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-impact-bias", "title": "Impact Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-impact-bias/" }, { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-723760d16e30b39e", "src-f612390f3949191b", "src-0ba7057e7c37fb49" ] }, { "scenarioId": "forecasting-future-choices-3", "prompt": "In forecasting & future choices, which lens does this check belong to: “Which part of today's state am I assuming will still describe my future self?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-projection-bias", "answerTitle": "Projection Bias", "question": "Which part of today's state am I assuming will still describe my future self?", "evidenceStatus": "established in intertemporal preference prediction", "qualification": "Projection bias describes a tendency to overproject current tastes or visceral states onto future preferences. People often understand that tastes will change but underestimate how much they will change. The construct is most directly supported in intertemporal choice and consumer settings; it should not be stretched into a generic explanation for every bad prediction about one's future self.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-projection-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-projection-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "self-assessment-hot", "title": "Hot–Cold Empathy Gap", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/self-assessment-hot/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-projection-bias", "title": "Projection Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-projection-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-impact-bias", "title": "Impact Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-impact-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-479735fa3da2d5b3", "src-3828d4aac220e974", "src-b0cc2953c2431e7b" ] }, { "scenarioId": "forecasting-future-choices-4", "prompt": "In forecasting & future choices, which lens does this check belong to: “Am I forecasting the focal event while forgetting the rest of ordinary future life?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-impact-bias", "answerTitle": "Impact Bias", "question": "Am I forecasting the focal event while forgetting the rest of ordinary future life?", "evidenceStatus": "well supported, with important forecasting nuances", "qualification": "People often overestimate how intense or long their emotional reactions to future events will be, especially when the focal event crowds out everything else that will also shape daily experience. The literature is broader than a rule that people always overpredict emotion: forecasting errors vary by event, time horizon, emotion, and what exactly is being predicted.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-impact-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-impact-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-impact-bias", "title": "Impact Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-impact-bias/" }, { "slug": "self-assessment-hot", "title": "Hot–Cold Empathy Gap", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/self-assessment-hot/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "title": "Hindsight Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-ebc67fd4db360d62", "src-ea6429b27b8d6ccf", "src-bf639003c08f7257", "src-902102ef57fb68e5" ] }, { "scenarioId": "forecasting-future-choices-5", "prompt": "In forecasting & future choices, which lens does this check belong to: “Am I predicting choices in a future hot or cold state from a state with different motives, cravings, pain, fear, or arousal?”", "answerSlug": "self-assessment-hot", "answerTitle": "Hot–Cold Empathy Gap", "question": "Am I predicting choices in a future hot or cold state from a state with different motives, cravings, pain, fear, or arousal?", "evidenceStatus": "well established across state-dependent judgment research", "qualification": "The hot–cold empathy gap describes difficulty predicting preferences, behavior, or experience across different visceral or affective states. In a relatively cold state, people can underappreciate how pain, hunger, sexual arousal, craving, fear, anger, and other hot states will change motivation and choice; in a hot state, they can also overproject the current state into the future. The pattern can be intrapersonal or interpersonal and should not be reduced to a generic claim that emotion always causes bad decisions.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/self-assessment-hot/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/self-assessment-hot/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "title": "Hindsight Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/" }, { "slug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "title": "Subadditivity Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/" }, { "slug": "self-assessment-hot", "title": "Hot–Cold Empathy Gap", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/self-assessment-hot/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-30911b2f36e96c9d", "src-adcadd8b7935bf35", "src-26f3b86cc6d92ecf" ] }, { "scenarioId": "forecasting-future-choices-6", "prompt": "In forecasting & future choices, which lens does this check belong to: “What probability did I actually assign before I learned the outcome?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "answerTitle": "Hindsight Bias", "question": "What probability did I actually assign before I learned the outcome?", "evidenceStatus": "robust", "qualification": "Knowing an outcome can make the outcome look more predictable in retrospect. The effect has been studied for decades and across many settings, but it does not mean that every confident explanation after an event is biased.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "title": "Hindsight Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/" }, { "slug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "title": "Subadditivity Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-6df53f947e2583fa", "src-75d0eb4cf8b10c07" ] } ] }, { "slug": "ai-assisted-decisions", "title": "AI-assisted decisions", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when a chatbot, model, recommendation system, or automated decision aid is influencing what you believe or do.", "contextSlug": "ai-assisted-decisions", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/ai-assisted-decisions/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/ai-assisted-decisions/", "scenarioCount": 6, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "ai-assisted-decisions-1", "prompt": "In ai-assisted decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “Am I using the automated recommendation as a substitute for checking the evidence I could realistically verify?”", "answerSlug": "false-priors-automation-bias", "answerTitle": "Automation Bias", "question": "Am I using the automated recommendation as a substitute for checking the evidence I could realistically verify?", "evidenceStatus": "established, context-dependent", "qualification": "Automation bias is a documented pattern of inappropriate reliance on automated cues or recommendations. It can produce commission errors when a user follows incorrect advice and omission errors when a user fails to act because automation did not signal a problem. This does not mean automation is generally harmful: decision support can improve overall performance, and the relevant question is whether reliance remains calibrated when the system is wrong, incomplete, or difficult to verify.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/false-priors-automation-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/false-priors-automation-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "false-priors-automation-bias", "title": "Automation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/false-priors-automation-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "availability-heuristic-anthropomorphism", "title": "Anthropomorphism", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/availability-heuristic-anthropomorphism/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-0252755d114dfb6c", "src-f8b4657a59aad7de", "src-965010b0cf7cde95", "src-d8b0db0a156ad3a7" ] }, { "scenarioId": "ai-assisted-decisions-2", "prompt": "In ai-assisted decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “Did the AI’s first number become my starting point before I formed an independent estimate?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "answerTitle": "Anchoring Effect", "question": "Did the AI’s first number become my starting point before I formed an independent estimate?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported for numerical judgments; strength depends on anchor type and context", "qualification": "Anchoring is a well-supported effect in which an initial numerical value can pull a later estimate toward it. A 2026 meta-analysis covering 2,601 effect sizes found a large overall effect, but also substantial variation across studies. The effect should not be treated as a rule that every number changes every judgment: incidental anchors, anchors from a different dimension, clearly random values, incentives, and some debiasing conditions were associated with smaller or null effects.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "availability-heuristic-anthropomorphism", "title": "Anthropomorphism", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/availability-heuristic-anthropomorphism/" }, { "slug": "human-robot-interaction-form", "title": "Appearance–Capability Expectation", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/human-robot-interaction-form/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-4e94d948f6b94566", "src-35855b06b246eebe", "src-639229081285f101", "src-ce811297b2050379" ] }, { "scenarioId": "ai-assisted-decisions-3", "prompt": "In ai-assisted decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “Which humanlike cues are making me infer understanding, intention, empathy, or competence that I have not actually tested?”", "answerSlug": "availability-heuristic-anthropomorphism", "answerTitle": "Anthropomorphism", "question": "Which humanlike cues are making me infer understanding, intention, empathy, or competence that I have not actually tested?", "evidenceStatus": "established attribution tendency; not inherently an error", "qualification": "Anthropomorphism is the attribution of humanlike properties, intentions, emotions, or mental states to nonhuman agents. It is a well-established psychological phenomenon, but it is not automatically a cognitive error: humanlike models can sometimes be useful. The risk appears when humanlike cues are treated as evidence for capabilities, understanding, accuracy, consciousness, or motives that have not actually been demonstrated.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/availability-heuristic-anthropomorphism/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/availability-heuristic-anthropomorphism/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "availability-heuristic-anthropomorphism", "title": "Anthropomorphism", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/availability-heuristic-anthropomorphism/" }, { "slug": "human-robot-interaction-form", "title": "Appearance–Capability Expectation", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/human-robot-interaction-form/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-24b9394643fb3945", "src-2c6a7b7f9b72cb27", "src-f57ecaab4be6bbd9", "src-b4d5205770653dfc" ] }, { "scenarioId": "ai-assisted-decisions-4", "prompt": "In ai-assisted decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “What capabilities am I inferring from appearance, voice, interface polish, or conversational style rather than observed performance?”", "answerSlug": "human-robot-interaction-form", "answerTitle": "Appearance–Capability Expectation", "question": "What capabilities am I inferring from appearance, voice, interface polish, or conversational style rather than observed performance?", "evidenceStatus": "supported HRI pattern; project label is nonstandard", "qualification": "Research supports the broader pattern that a robot's appearance, morphology, framing, and human-likeness shape expectations about its competence, social qualities, and likely behavior. However, 'Form-Function Attribution Bias' is not an established standardized name in the literature. On this site it should be treated as a project label for appearance-driven capability expectations, not as a universally recognized cognitive-bias construct.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/human-robot-interaction-form/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/human-robot-interaction-form/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "human-robot-interaction-form", "title": "Appearance–Capability Expectation", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/human-robot-interaction-form/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect", "title": "Illusory Truth Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-e3698f659e09ea7e", "src-394b04c1e1398c8f", "src-09bef5bf4eda8006", "src-b4d5205770653dfc" ] }, { "scenarioId": "ai-assisted-decisions-5", "prompt": "In ai-assisted decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “Did I ask the AI to test my preferred conclusion, or mainly to produce better arguments for it?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "answerTitle": "Confirmation Bias", "question": "Did I ask the AI to test my preferred conclusion, or mainly to produce better arguments for it?", "evidenceStatus": "well established, broad construct", "qualification": "Confirmation bias is an umbrella label for several ways existing beliefs or hypotheses can influence information search and interpretation. It should not be reduced to one behaviour such as reading only agreeable news, and a preference for confirming tests is not irrational in every task or environment.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect", "title": "Illusory Truth Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/" }, { "slug": "false-priors-automation-bias", "title": "Automation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/false-priors-automation-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-83375467c08e8177", "src-c4e8734b8f1248ee" ] }, { "scenarioId": "ai-assisted-decisions-6", "prompt": "In ai-assisted decisions, which lens does this check belong to: “Does this claim feel more credible because I have encountered it repeatedly, or because I verified independent evidence for it?”", "answerSlug": "truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect", "answerTitle": "Illusory Truth Effect", "question": "Does this claim feel more credible because I have encountered it repeatedly, or because I verified independent evidence for it?", "evidenceStatus": "robust", "qualification": "Repeated information is, on average, judged as more truthful than comparable new information. The size of the effect varies with the material and procedure, and repetition does not make every claim believable or erase all prior knowledge.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect", "title": "Illusory Truth Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/" }, { "slug": "false-priors-automation-bias", "title": "Automation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/false-priors-automation-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-c393b2ca6b3172da", "src-e17b930d0863e88a", "src-7faeefb6c3a24d1d" ] } ] }, { "slug": "project-estimation-delivery", "title": "Project estimation & delivery", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when setting a deadline, estimating effort, discussing delivery risk, or learning from a project that finished later than expected.", "contextSlug": "project-estimation-delivery", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/project-estimation-delivery/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/project-estimation-delivery/", "scenarioCount": 6, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "project-estimation-delivery-1", "prompt": "In project estimation & delivery, which lens does this check belong to: “What happened on the most comparable completed work, and why should this case be faster or slower?”", "answerSlug": "egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy", "answerTitle": "Planning Fallacy", "question": "What happened on the most comparable completed work, and why should this case be faster or slower?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported for time estimates; size and causes vary by context", "qualification": "The planning fallacy is a well-documented tendency for people to predict their own task completion times too optimistically. The effect has been observed across different kinds of tasks, but it is not a rule that every plan will run late. Project overruns can also come from changing scope, dependencies, incentives, poor data, deliberate underestimation, or genuinely unusual events, so a late project should not automatically be diagnosed as a planning fallacy.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy", "title": "Planning Fallacy", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "title": "Subadditivity Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-7d92150bd312c109", "src-cf328825be4a0674", "src-d6ecdecbd0ffae61", "src-d98817dbf800d030" ] }, { "scenarioId": "project-estimation-delivery-2", "prompt": "In project estimation & delivery, which lens does this check belong to: “Which early number is shaping this estimate, and what would we estimate if we had not seen it first?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "answerTitle": "Anchoring Effect", "question": "Which early number is shaping this estimate, and what would we estimate if we had not seen it first?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported for numerical judgments; strength depends on anchor type and context", "qualification": "Anchoring is a well-supported effect in which an initial numerical value can pull a later estimate toward it. A 2026 meta-analysis covering 2,601 effect sizes found a large overall effect, but also substantial variation across studies. The effect should not be treated as a rule that every number changes every judgment: incidental anchors, anchors from a different dimension, clearly random values, incentives, and some debiasing conditions were associated with smaller or null effects.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "title": "Subadditivity Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/" }, { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-4e94d948f6b94566", "src-35855b06b246eebe", "src-639229081285f101", "src-ce811297b2050379" ] }, { "scenarioId": "project-estimation-delivery-3", "prompt": "In project estimation & delivery, which lens does this check belong to: “Does the risk estimate change when we unpack the main ways the project could be delayed?”", "answerSlug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "answerTitle": "Subadditivity Effect", "question": "Does the risk estimate change when we unpack the main ways the project could be delayed?", "evidenceStatus": "established with boundary conditions", "qualification": "People often give a larger total probability when an event is unpacked into separate possibilities than when the same event is judged as one packed category. The effect is not universal: how the possibilities are described and how typical they are can change or even reverse an unpacking effect.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "title": "Hindsight Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/" }, { "slug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "title": "Subadditivity Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/" }, { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "mixed", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-e5eecafb672bd8ed", "src-9f9930db613528b2", "src-ffae461551a5d8e7" ] }, { "scenarioId": "project-estimation-delivery-4", "prompt": "In project estimation & delivery, which lens does this check belong to: “Are we using a vivid recent project as the baseline because it is representative, or simply because it is easy to remember?”", "answerSlug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "answerTitle": "Availability Heuristic", "question": "Are we using a vivid recent project as the baseline because it is representative, or simply because it is easy to remember?", "evidenceStatus": "established heuristic; bias is context-dependent", "qualification": "Availability is a judgment heuristic: people can use how easily examples or scenarios come to mind when estimating frequency or probability. That shortcut is not automatically an error because memorable or accessible examples can correlate with real frequency. Bias appears when accessibility is driven by factors that are not diagnostic of the quantity being judged.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "title": "Hindsight Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/" }, { "slug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "title": "Escalation of Commitment", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-723760d16e30b39e", "src-f612390f3949191b", "src-0ba7057e7c37fb49" ] }, { "scenarioId": "project-estimation-delivery-5", "prompt": "In project estimation & delivery, which lens does this check belong to: “What did the original estimate and assumptions actually say before we knew the delivery result?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "answerTitle": "Hindsight Bias", "question": "What did the original estimate and assumptions actually say before we knew the delivery result?", "evidenceStatus": "robust", "qualification": "Knowing an outcome can make the outcome look more predictable in retrospect. The effect has been studied for decades and across many settings, but it does not mean that every confident explanation after an event is biased.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "title": "Escalation of Commitment", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/" }, { "slug": "egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy", "title": "Planning Fallacy", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias", "title": "Hindsight Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-hindsight-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-6df53f947e2583fa", "src-75d0eb4cf8b10c07" ] }, { "scenarioId": "project-estimation-delivery-6", "prompt": "In project estimation & delivery, which lens does this check belong to: “If we were deciding only about the remaining work today, would we still choose the same next step?”", "answerSlug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "answerTitle": "Escalation of Commitment", "question": "If we were deciding only about the remaining work today, would we still choose the same next step?", "evidenceStatus": "established, but related constructs should be separated", "qualification": "Sunk-cost effects and escalation of commitment overlap but are not interchangeable. Sunk-cost research asks whether irrecoverable prior investments influence current choices. Escalation of commitment describes persistence or additional resource allocation to a failing course of action and can also be driven by personal responsibility, self-justification, project structure, and other factors.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "title": "Escalation of Commitment", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/" }, { "slug": "egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy", "title": "Planning Fallacy", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-644614d8919a2ee4", "src-25c242b954867ac1", "src-ec03691286f7284e" ] } ] }, { "slug": "checking-claims-misinformation", "title": "Checking claims & misinformation", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when deciding whether a repeated claim is trustworthy, checking a correction, or testing an explanation against plausible alternatives.", "contextSlug": "checking-claims-misinformation", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/checking-claims-misinformation/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/checking-claims-misinformation/", "scenarioCount": 6, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "checking-claims-misinformation-1", "prompt": "In checking claims & misinformation, which lens does this check belong to: “Am I using the same evidence standard for information that supports and challenges the claim?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "answerTitle": "Confirmation Bias", "question": "Am I using the same evidence standard for information that supports and challenges the claim?", "evidenceStatus": "well established, broad construct", "qualification": "Confirmation bias is an umbrella label for several ways existing beliefs or hypotheses can influence information search and interpretation. It should not be reduced to one behaviour such as reading only agreeable news, and a preference for confirming tests is not irrational in every task or environment.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "confirmation-bias-congruence-bias", "title": "Congruence Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-congruence-bias/" }, { "slug": "truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect", "title": "Illusory Truth Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-83375467c08e8177", "src-c4e8734b8f1248ee" ] }, { "scenarioId": "checking-claims-misinformation-2", "prompt": "In checking claims & misinformation, which lens does this check belong to: “Would this test distinguish the preferred explanation from plausible alternatives, or would they predict the same result?”", "answerSlug": "confirmation-bias-congruence-bias", "answerTitle": "Congruence Bias", "question": "Would this test distinguish the preferred explanation from plausible alternatives, or would they predict the same result?", "evidenceStatus": "established in hypothesis-testing tasks; narrower than confirmation bias", "qualification": "Congruence Bias is a narrower hypothesis-testing pattern than the broad umbrella of confirmation bias. In classic work, people overvalued tests that were likely to return a positive result if their leading hypothesis were true, even when other tests were more diagnostic among competing hypotheses. The useful claim is not that every positive test is irrational: a positive test strategy can be efficient in some environments, and the problem depends on whether the chosen test can actually distinguish the focal hypothesis from alternatives.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-congruence-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-congruence-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect", "title": "Illusory Truth Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/" }, { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" }, { "slug": "confirmation-bias-congruence-bias", "title": "Congruence Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-congruence-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "domain-specific", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-54ea5126c3035a7e", "src-f3a6c8d07f4870ec" ] }, { "scenarioId": "checking-claims-misinformation-3", "prompt": "In checking claims & misinformation, which lens does this check belong to: “Does this feel true because it was independently verified, or because I have encountered the same claim repeatedly?”", "answerSlug": "truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect", "answerTitle": "Illusory Truth Effect", "question": "Does this feel true because it was independently verified, or because I have encountered the same claim repeatedly?", "evidenceStatus": "robust", "qualification": "Repeated information is, on average, judged as more truthful than comparable new information. The size of the effect varies with the material and procedure, and repetition does not make every claim believable or erase all prior knowledge.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "memory-bias-continued-influence-effect", "title": "Continued Influence Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-continued-influence-effect/" }, { "slug": "truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect", "title": "Illusory Truth Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/truth-judgment-illusory-truth-effect/" }, { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-c393b2ca6b3172da", "src-e17b930d0863e88a", "src-7faeefb6c3a24d1d" ] }, { "scenarioId": "checking-claims-misinformation-4", "prompt": "In checking claims & misinformation, which lens does this check belong to: “Is the example easy to recall because it is representative, or because it is vivid, recent, emotional, or repeated?”", "answerSlug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "answerTitle": "Availability Heuristic", "question": "Is the example easy to recall because it is representative, or because it is vivid, recent, emotional, or repeated?", "evidenceStatus": "established heuristic; bias is context-dependent", "qualification": "Availability is a judgment heuristic: people can use how easily examples or scenarios come to mind when estimating frequency or probability. That shortcut is not automatically an error because memorable or accessible examples can correlate with real frequency. Bias appears when accessibility is driven by factors that are not diagnostic of the quantity being judged.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" }, { "slug": "memory-bias-continued-influence-effect", "title": "Continued Influence Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-continued-influence-effect/" }, { "slug": "confirmation-bias-backfire-effect", "title": "Backfire Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-backfire-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-723760d16e30b39e", "src-f612390f3949191b", "src-0ba7057e7c37fb49" ] }, { "scenarioId": "checking-claims-misinformation-5", "prompt": "In checking claims & misinformation, which lens does this check belong to: “After the correction, am I still using part of the old information when explaining or judging the situation?”", "answerSlug": "memory-bias-continued-influence-effect", "answerTitle": "Continued Influence Effect", "question": "After the correction, am I still using part of the old information when explaining or judging the situation?", "evidenceStatus": "well-established persistence after correction; corrections usually still help", "qualification": "The continued influence effect describes a specific pattern: false or outdated information can keep affecting later reasoning even after a clear correction. It does not mean the correction had no effect, that the person rejected the correction, or that belief in the false claim became stronger. Corrections often reduce misinformation reliance without removing it completely. That distinction matters because continued influence is much broader than the rarer backfire outcome.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-continued-influence-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-continued-influence-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "confirmation-bias-backfire-effect", "title": "Backfire Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-backfire-effect/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "memory-bias-continued-influence-effect", "title": "Continued Influence Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-continued-influence-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-9811dba9926395b6", "src-6891b8bf627a6ec7", "src-422189df9f5faa26", "src-80cc3fc9e30c3c69", "src-4f99e4ca8c1af4fe" ] }, { "scenarioId": "checking-claims-misinformation-6", "prompt": "In checking claims & misinformation, which lens does this check belong to: “Did belief in the corrected false claim actually become stronger, or am I calling disagreement or incomplete updating a backfire?”", "answerSlug": "confirmation-bias-backfire-effect", "answerTitle": "Backfire Effect", "question": "Did belief in the corrected false claim actually become stronger, or am I calling disagreement or incomplete updating a backfire?", "evidenceStatus": "mixed / conditional", "qualification": "Corrections usually improve factual accuracy. A true backfire effect, where a correction makes the targeted false belief stronger, appears to be uncommon and sensitive to context and measurement. It should not be treated as the default response to being corrected.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-backfire-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-backfire-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "confirmation-bias-congruence-bias", "title": "Congruence Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-congruence-bias/" }, { "slug": "confirmation-bias-backfire-effect", "title": "Backfire Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/confirmation-bias-backfire-effect/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "mixed", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-e1813cd3b9123eaf", "src-40282584441d78a7", "src-4f99e4ca8c1af4fe" ] } ] }, { "slug": "comparing-plans-pricing", "title": "Comparing plans & pricing", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when comparing subscription tiers, product plans, vendor offers or recommendation menus where the way options are arranged may change what looks attractive.", "contextSlug": "comparing-plans-pricing", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/comparing-plans-pricing/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/comparing-plans-pricing/", "scenarioCount": 4, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "comparing-plans-pricing-1", "prompt": "In comparing plans & pricing, which lens does this check belong to: “Does removing the inferior or strategically positioned option change my preference between the remaining plans?”", "answerSlug": "framing-effect-decoy-effect", "answerTitle": "Decoy Effect", "question": "Does removing the inferior or strategically positioned option change my preference between the remaining plans?", "evidenceStatus": "well documented, context-dependent", "qualification": "The decoy effect is a well-documented family of context effects in which adding an inferior or otherwise strategically positioned alternative can change choice shares among the original options. The classic attraction effect uses an asymmetrically dominated decoy that is worse than the target but not necessarily worse than the competitor. The effect is not guaranteed: its size depends on the geometry of the options, prior preferences, task design and other moderators, and preregistered replications have found both successful and weak or null results.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-decoy-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-decoy-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "framing-effect-decoy-effect", "title": "Decoy Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-decoy-effect/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-default-effect", "title": "Default Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-84a20f469659275d", "src-6f220811f3f7fc69", "src-fe432751bebf733b", "src-37cf79ece99ea6c9" ] }, { "scenarioId": "comparing-plans-pricing-2", "prompt": "In comparing plans & pricing, which lens does this check belong to: “Which plan applies if I do nothing, and is that automatic outcome being mistaken for preference?”", "answerSlug": "framing-effect-default-effect", "answerTitle": "Default Effect", "question": "Which plan applies if I do nothing, and is that automatic outcome being mistaken for preference?", "evidenceStatus": "well supported, highly context-dependent", "qualification": "Pre-selecting an option often increases the chance that people choose it, but the size of the default effect varies greatly across domains and designs. A 2019 meta-analysis of 58 studies found a substantial average effect together with strong heterogeneity, including some studies with little or even reversed effects. Staying with a default should therefore not be treated as a direct measure of strong preference or as proof that the default improved welfare.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-core", "title": "Framing Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-default-effect", "title": "Default Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-7d9d96710fab2c5f", "src-64c4a8072d35fe53", "src-90e516c044f0e914", "src-5e28781720bc4f35" ] }, { "scenarioId": "comparing-plans-pricing-3", "prompt": "In comparing plans & pricing, which lens does this check belong to: “Which displayed price, budget or recommendation became the starting point for my value judgment?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "answerTitle": "Anchoring Effect", "question": "Which displayed price, budget or recommendation became the starting point for my value judgment?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported for numerical judgments; strength depends on anchor type and context", "qualification": "Anchoring is a well-supported effect in which an initial numerical value can pull a later estimate toward it. A 2026 meta-analysis covering 2,601 effect sizes found a large overall effect, but also substantial variation across studies. The effect should not be treated as a rule that every number changes every judgment: incidental anchors, anchors from a different dimension, clearly random values, incentives, and some debiasing conditions were associated with smaller or null effects.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "framing-effect-decoy-effect", "title": "Decoy Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-decoy-effect/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-core", "title": "Framing Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-4e94d948f6b94566", "src-35855b06b246eebe", "src-639229081285f101", "src-ce811297b2050379" ] }, { "scenarioId": "comparing-plans-pricing-4", "prompt": "In comparing plans & pricing, which lens does this check belong to: “Are equivalent features, gains, losses or rates described differently across the options?”", "answerSlug": "framing-effect-core", "answerTitle": "Framing Effect", "question": "Are equivalent features, gains, losses or rates described differently across the options?", "evidenceStatus": "risky-choice framing is robust; broader framing types have different evidence", "qualification": "Framing research covers several distinct paradigms. Risky-choice framing, where equivalent outcomes are presented as gains or losses, is a well-established effect with substantial evidence across many studies. A classic meta-analysis found a reliable small-to-moderate average effect with strong variation across designs, and later reviews and metastudies support broad generalizability. Attribute framing also has supporting evidence, while goal or message framing is less consistently established. These should not be treated as one identical effect caused by any change in wording.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "framing-effect-core", "title": "Framing Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-decoy-effect", "title": "Decoy Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-decoy-effect/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-default-effect", "title": "Default Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-bb0fa40a53281f49", "src-0e441147fc835a3d", "src-47b281f980645234", "src-2e83fc60350e0524", "src-dc40b5ceda9cbea1" ] } ] }, { "slug": "defaults-settings-choice-architecture", "title": "Defaults, settings & choice architecture", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when a form, product, policy or system decides what happens if a person does nothing, or when an existing setting is difficult to reconsider.", "contextSlug": "defaults-settings-choice-architecture", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/defaults-settings-choice-architecture/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/defaults-settings-choice-architecture/", "scenarioCount": 4, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "defaults-settings-choice-architecture-1", "prompt": "In defaults, settings & choice architecture, which lens does this check belong to: “What happens automatically if the person does nothing, and how much does that pre-selection change uptake?”", "answerSlug": "framing-effect-default-effect", "answerTitle": "Default Effect", "question": "What happens automatically if the person does nothing, and how much does that pre-selection change uptake?", "evidenceStatus": "well supported, highly context-dependent", "qualification": "Pre-selecting an option often increases the chance that people choose it, but the size of the default effect varies greatly across domains and designs. A 2019 meta-analysis of 58 studies found a substantial average effect together with strong heterogeneity, including some studies with little or even reversed effects. Staying with a default should therefore not be treated as a direct measure of strong preference or as proof that the default improved welfare.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "framing-effect-default-effect", "title": "Default Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/" }, { "slug": "prospect-theory-status-quo-bias", "title": "Status Quo Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-status-quo-bias/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-core", "title": "Framing Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-7d9d96710fab2c5f", "src-64c4a8072d35fe53", "src-90e516c044f0e914", "src-5e28781720bc4f35" ] }, { "scenarioId": "defaults-settings-choice-architecture-2", "prompt": "In defaults, settings & choice architecture, which lens does this check belong to: “Is the current option getting extra weight simply because it is already in place?”", "answerSlug": "prospect-theory-status-quo-bias", "answerTitle": "Status Quo Bias", "question": "Is the current option getting extra weight simply because it is already in place?", "evidenceStatus": "well established, broader than interface defaults", "qualification": "Status quo bias describes extra preference for an option because it is the current or existing state. Classic experiments and field observations found disproportionate persistence with status quo options, but keeping the current option is not automatically a bias. Switching can have real financial, practical, learning or uncertainty costs that make staying reasonable.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-status-quo-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-status-quo-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "framing-effect-core", "title": "Framing Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "prospect-theory-status-quo-bias", "title": "Status Quo Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-status-quo-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-e857ab07ab417658", "src-638a04b999a9cc4b", "src-64c4a8072d35fe53" ] }, { "scenarioId": "defaults-settings-choice-architecture-3", "prompt": "In defaults, settings & choice architecture, which lens does this check belong to: “Would the choice change if the same outcomes were described with an equivalent gain, loss or attribute frame?”", "answerSlug": "framing-effect-core", "answerTitle": "Framing Effect", "question": "Would the choice change if the same outcomes were described with an equivalent gain, loss or attribute frame?", "evidenceStatus": "risky-choice framing is robust; broader framing types have different evidence", "qualification": "Framing research covers several distinct paradigms. Risky-choice framing, where equivalent outcomes are presented as gains or losses, is a well-established effect with substantial evidence across many studies. A classic meta-analysis found a reliable small-to-moderate average effect with strong variation across designs, and later reviews and metastudies support broad generalizability. Attribute framing also has supporting evidence, while goal or message framing is less consistently established. These should not be treated as one identical effect caused by any change in wording.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "framing-effect-default-effect", "title": "Default Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-core", "title": "Framing Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-bb0fa40a53281f49", "src-0e441147fc835a3d", "src-47b281f980645234", "src-2e83fc60350e0524", "src-dc40b5ceda9cbea1" ] }, { "scenarioId": "defaults-settings-choice-architecture-4", "prompt": "In defaults, settings & choice architecture, which lens does this check belong to: “Did a suggested number, threshold or starting value become the reference point for the decision?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "answerTitle": "Anchoring Effect", "question": "Did a suggested number, threshold or starting value become the reference point for the decision?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported for numerical judgments; strength depends on anchor type and context", "qualification": "Anchoring is a well-supported effect in which an initial numerical value can pull a later estimate toward it. A 2026 meta-analysis covering 2,601 effect sizes found a large overall effect, but also substantial variation across studies. The effect should not be treated as a rule that every number changes every judgment: incidental anchors, anchors from a different dimension, clearly random values, incentives, and some debiasing conditions were associated with smaller or null effects.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-default-effect", "title": "Default Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-default-effect/" }, { "slug": "prospect-theory-status-quo-bias", "title": "Status Quo Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-status-quo-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-4e94d948f6b94566", "src-35855b06b246eebe", "src-639229081285f101", "src-ce811297b2050379" ] } ] }, { "slug": "presenting-risk-options", "title": "Presenting risk & options", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when a report, interface, model, or recommendation is presenting numbers and choices that other people will use to decide.", "contextSlug": "presenting-risk-options", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/presenting-risk-options/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/presenting-risk-options/", "scenarioCount": 5, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "presenting-risk-options-1", "prompt": "In presenting risk & options, which lens does this check belong to: “Would the choice change if the same outcomes were presented with an equivalent gain, loss, or neutral description?”", "answerSlug": "framing-effect-core", "answerTitle": "Framing Effect", "question": "Would the choice change if the same outcomes were presented with an equivalent gain, loss, or neutral description?", "evidenceStatus": "risky-choice framing is robust; broader framing types have different evidence", "qualification": "Framing research covers several distinct paradigms. Risky-choice framing, where equivalent outcomes are presented as gains or losses, is a well-established effect with substantial evidence across many studies. A classic meta-analysis found a reliable small-to-moderate average effect with strong variation across designs, and later reviews and metastudies support broad generalizability. Attribute framing also has supporting evidence, while goal or message framing is less consistently established. These should not be treated as one identical effect caused by any change in wording.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "framing-effect-core", "title": "Framing Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/" }, { "slug": "prospect-theory-loss-aversion", "title": "Loss Aversion", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-bb0fa40a53281f49", "src-0e441147fc835a3d", "src-47b281f980645234", "src-2e83fc60350e0524", "src-dc40b5ceda9cbea1" ] }, { "scenarioId": "presenting-risk-options-2", "prompt": "In presenting risk & options, which lens does this check belong to: “What is the reference point, and are equivalent losses receiving more weight than comparable gains in this decision?”", "answerSlug": "prospect-theory-loss-aversion", "answerTitle": "Loss Aversion", "question": "What is the reference point, and are equivalent losses receiving more weight than comparable gains in this decision?", "evidenceStatus": "influential and widely estimated; magnitude and robustness debated", "qualification": "Loss aversion is a central component of prospect theory and many studies estimate losses as receiving greater subjective weight than gains around a reference point. However, the effect should not be summarized with one universal coefficient. A 2024 interdisciplinary meta-analysis of 607 estimates reported a mean coefficient near 1.96, while another 2024 meta-analysis of individual risky-choice datasets estimated about 1.31. A 2025 re-analysis of the larger dataset found little evidence of loss aversion in some symmetric, unordered designs, showing that task structure and analysis can materially change the result.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "title": "Subadditivity Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/" }, { "slug": "prospect-theory-loss-aversion", "title": "Loss Aversion", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/" } ], "evidenceClass": "mixed", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-48160eef6b029066", "src-e8a194eeb0017a8a", "src-368a6a9d36d10612", "src-72b6f021c45204d9" ] }, { "scenarioId": "presenting-risk-options-3", "prompt": "In presenting risk & options, which lens does this check belong to: “Which number is shown first, and is it pulling later estimates toward itself?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "answerTitle": "Anchoring Effect", "question": "Which number is shown first, and is it pulling later estimates toward itself?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported for numerical judgments; strength depends on anchor type and context", "qualification": "Anchoring is a well-supported effect in which an initial numerical value can pull a later estimate toward it. A 2026 meta-analysis covering 2,601 effect sizes found a large overall effect, but also substantial variation across studies. The effect should not be treated as a rule that every number changes every judgment: incidental anchors, anchors from a different dimension, clearly random values, incentives, and some debiasing conditions were associated with smaller or null effects.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "title": "Subadditivity Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-4e94d948f6b94566", "src-35855b06b246eebe", "src-639229081285f101", "src-ce811297b2050379" ] }, { "scenarioId": "presenting-risk-options-4", "prompt": "In presenting risk & options, which lens does this check belong to: “Does the total risk estimate change when the same outcome is unpacked into explicit possibilities?”", "answerSlug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "answerTitle": "Subadditivity Effect", "question": "Does the total risk estimate change when the same outcome is unpacked into explicit possibilities?", "evidenceStatus": "established with boundary conditions", "qualification": "People often give a larger total probability when an event is unpacked into separate possibilities than when the same event is judged as one packed category. The effect is not universal: how the possibilities are described and how typical they are can change or even reverse an unpacking effect.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "probability-bias-subadditivity-effect", "title": "Subadditivity Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/probability-bias-subadditivity-effect/" }, { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" }, { "slug": "framing-effect-core", "title": "Framing Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/" } ], "evidenceClass": "mixed", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-e5eecafb672bd8ed", "src-9f9930db613528b2", "src-ffae461551a5d8e7" ] }, { "scenarioId": "presenting-risk-options-5", "prompt": "In presenting risk & options, which lens does this check belong to: “Is a vivid example affecting the estimate because it is representative, or mainly because it is easy to recall?”", "answerSlug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "answerTitle": "Availability Heuristic", "question": "Is a vivid example affecting the estimate because it is representative, or mainly because it is easy to recall?", "evidenceStatus": "established heuristic; bias is context-dependent", "qualification": "Availability is a judgment heuristic: people can use how easily examples or scenarios come to mind when estimating frequency or probability. That shortcut is not automatically an error because memorable or accessible examples can correlate with real frequency. Bias appears when accessibility is driven by factors that are not diagnostic of the quantity being judged.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "framing-effect-core", "title": "Framing Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/framing-effect-core/" }, { "slug": "prospect-theory-loss-aversion", "title": "Loss Aversion", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/" }, { "slug": "heuristic-bias-availability-bias", "title": "Availability Heuristic", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/heuristic-bias-availability-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-723760d16e30b39e", "src-f612390f3949191b", "src-0ba7057e7c37fb49" ] } ] }, { "slug": "reviewing-kpis-proxy-metrics", "title": "Reviewing KPIs & proxy metrics", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when a team is using scores, dashboards, targets, benchmarks, or AI evaluations to represent a broader objective.", "contextSlug": "reviewing-kpis-proxy-metrics", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/reviewing-kpis-proxy-metrics/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/reviewing-kpis-proxy-metrics/", "scenarioCount": 4, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "reviewing-kpis-proxy-metrics-1", "prompt": "In reviewing kpis & proxy metrics, which lens does this check belong to: “Are we treating the measure as evidence about the objective, or have we started treating the measure as the objective itself?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-surrogation", "answerTitle": "Surrogation", "question": "Are we treating the measure as evidence about the objective, or have we started treating the measure as the objective itself?", "evidenceStatus": "supported in strategic performance-measure settings", "qualification": "Surrogation is a domain-specific management-accounting construct: a measure that was designed to represent a strategic objective can start to be treated as though it were the objective itself. It is closely related to metric fixation and proxy problems, but those broader labels should not be treated as exact synonyms without checking the setting and mechanism.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-surrogation", "title": "Surrogation", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-bc1fa4e94ab0fa71", "src-dd6028af1211deb7" ] }, { "scenarioId": "reviewing-kpis-proxy-metrics-2", "prompt": "In reviewing kpis & proxy metrics, which lens does this check belong to: “Which target, benchmark, baseline, or first score is shaping later judgments before we build an independent estimate?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "answerTitle": "Anchoring Effect", "question": "Which target, benchmark, baseline, or first score is shaping later judgments before we build an independent estimate?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported for numerical judgments; strength depends on anchor type and context", "qualification": "Anchoring is a well-supported effect in which an initial numerical value can pull a later estimate toward it. A 2026 meta-analysis covering 2,601 effect sizes found a large overall effect, but also substantial variation across studies. The effect should not be treated as a rule that every number changes every judgment: incidental anchors, anchors from a different dimension, clearly random values, incentives, and some debiasing conditions were associated with smaller or null effects.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "title": "Outcome Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-4e94d948f6b94566", "src-35855b06b246eebe", "src-639229081285f101", "src-ce811297b2050379" ] }, { "scenarioId": "reviewing-kpis-proxy-metrics-3", "prompt": "In reviewing kpis & proxy metrics, which lens does this check belong to: “What evidence would show that this KPI is a poor proxy, and have we actively looked for it?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "answerTitle": "Confirmation Bias", "question": "What evidence would show that this KPI is a poor proxy, and have we actively looked for it?", "evidenceStatus": "well established, broad construct", "qualification": "Confirmation bias is an umbrella label for several ways existing beliefs or hypotheses can influence information search and interpretation. It should not be reduced to one behaviour such as reading only agreeable news, and a preference for confirming tests is not irrational in every task or environment.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-surrogation", "title": "Surrogation", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "title": "Outcome Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-83375467c08e8177", "src-c4e8734b8f1248ee" ] }, { "scenarioId": "reviewing-kpis-proxy-metrics-4", "prompt": "In reviewing kpis & proxy metrics, which lens does this check belong to: “Are we judging the quality of the metric and decision process mainly from whether the final result happened to be good or bad?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "answerTitle": "Outcome Bias", "question": "Are we judging the quality of the metric and decision process mainly from whether the final result happened to be good or bad?", "evidenceStatus": "replicated", "qualification": "Outcome bias occurs when knowledge of a result changes how people evaluate the quality of a decision even when the information available at the time of the decision is held constant. Outcomes can still be relevant for learning, so the error is not 'never look at results'; it is using luck or hindsight as if it had been available to the original decision-maker.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "title": "Outcome Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-surrogation", "title": "Surrogation", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-surrogation/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-f1f0400ef362aaa8", "src-1801b1347f89ef91" ] } ] }, { "slug": "comparing-past-present", "title": "Was the past really better?", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when a personal memory or broad story about decline is being used to compare the present with an earlier period.", "contextSlug": "comparing-past-present", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/comparing-past-present/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/comparing-past-present/", "scenarioCount": 3, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "comparing-past-present-1", "prompt": "In was the past really better?, which lens does this check belong to: “Is a broad story of decline being asserted without a clearly defined indicator, population, and historical comparison?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-declinism", "answerTitle": "Declinism", "question": "Is a broad story of decline being asserted without a clearly defined indicator, population, and historical comparison?", "evidenceStatus": "umbrella label; direct evidence supports specific decline illusions", "qualification": "Declinism is best treated here as an umbrella label for judging the present as worse than an idealized past, not as one standardized cognitive-bias construct with a single mechanism. Research directly supports several narrower ingredients: people can remember past experiences more positively than they experienced them, negative affect associated with autobiographical memories often fades faster than positive affect, and large multi-study work finds a pervasive illusion of moral decline. None of this means that every claim of social, technological, institutional, or personal decline is false; real decline must be tested against domain-specific evidence.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-declinism/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-declinism/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-declinism", "title": "Declinism", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-declinism/" }, { "slug": "memory-bias-rosy-retrospection", "title": "Rosy Retrospection", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-rosy-retrospection/" }, { "slug": "memory-bias-fading-affect-bias", "title": "Fading Affect Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-fading-affect-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-c375f114daf625f6", "src-c378be567ea78220", "src-f3b090aa4f2bf959" ] }, { "scenarioId": "comparing-past-present-2", "prompt": "In was the past really better?, which lens does this check belong to: “Is a specific past experience remembered more positively now than it was experienced or recorded at the time?”", "answerSlug": "memory-bias-rosy-retrospection", "answerTitle": "Rosy Retrospection", "question": "Is a specific past experience remembered more positively now than it was experienced or recorded at the time?", "evidenceStatus": "supported in event-recollection studies; narrower than general nostalgia", "qualification": "Rosy Retrospection describes a pattern in which later evaluations of a past experience can become more positive than evaluations recorded during the experience itself. The classic work studied specific meaningful events and found more positive anticipation and later recollection than in-the-moment experience. This does not mean that every fond memory is false, that all past periods were worse than remembered, or that nostalgia is itself a bias.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-rosy-retrospection/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-rosy-retrospection/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "memory-bias-fading-affect-bias", "title": "Fading Affect Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-fading-affect-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-declinism", "title": "Declinism", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-declinism/" }, { "slug": "memory-bias-rosy-retrospection", "title": "Rosy Retrospection", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-rosy-retrospection/" } ], "evidenceClass": "domain-specific", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-c375f114daf625f6", "src-c378be567ea78220" ] }, { "scenarioId": "comparing-past-present-3", "prompt": "In was the past really better?, which lens does this check belong to: “Could the emotional intensity of negative past events have faded faster than positive affect, changing how the period feels in comparison with the present?”", "answerSlug": "memory-bias-fading-affect-bias", "answerTitle": "Fading Affect Bias", "question": "Could the emotional intensity of negative past events have faded faster than positive affect, changing how the period feels in comparison with the present?", "evidenceStatus": "supported across autobiographical-memory research, with moderators", "qualification": "Fading Affect Bias describes an average asymmetry in autobiographical memory: affect linked to negative events tends to weaken faster over time than affect linked to positive events. It is a group-level pattern with important moderators, not a rule that every painful memory becomes mild or positive. Recent large-sample work also finds the pattern when people directly report how the affect of their memories changed, rather than relying only on calculated differences between retrospective ratings.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-fading-affect-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-fading-affect-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "memory-bias-rosy-retrospection", "title": "Rosy Retrospection", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-rosy-retrospection/" }, { "slug": "memory-bias-fading-affect-bias", "title": "Fading Affect Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/memory-bias-fading-affect-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-declinism", "title": "Declinism", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-declinism/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-52af9360ef62152d", "src-816c78f1bdb1f366" ] } ] }, { "slug": "continue-change-stop-project", "title": "Continue, change, or stop a project", "summary": "Use these evidence-reviewed lenses when a project has disappointing results and the next decision is whether to invest more, change direction, or stop.", "contextSlug": "continue-change-stop-project", "contextUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/contexts/continue-change-stop-project/", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/practice/continue-change-stop-project/", "scenarioCount": 7, "scenarios": [ { "scenarioId": "continue-change-stop-project-1", "prompt": "In continue, change, or stop a project, which lens does this check belong to: “Which past costs are irrecoverable, and would they change what we choose if we evaluated only the future options?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-sunk-cost-effect", "answerTitle": "Sunk Cost Effect", "question": "Which past costs are irrecoverable, and would they change what we choose if we evaluated only the future options?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported overall; strength varies by decision type and context", "qualification": "The sunk cost effect is a documented tendency for irrecoverable prior investments of money, time, or effort to influence later choices. A meta-analytic review found clear evidence for the effect overall, while also showing that its size and moderators differ between utilization decisions and progress decisions. The effect should not be used to label every choice to continue: future value, switching costs, uncertainty, and how close a project is to useful completion can all be relevant to a forward-looking decision.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-sunk-cost-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-sunk-cost-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-sunk-cost-effect", "title": "Sunk Cost Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-sunk-cost-effect/" }, { "slug": "prospect-theory-loss-aversion", "title": "Loss Aversion", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/" }, { "slug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "title": "Escalation of Commitment", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-25c242b954867ac1", "src-812f426a52613922", "src-ec03691286f7284e" ] }, { "scenarioId": "continue-change-stop-project-2", "prompt": "In continue, change, or stop a project, which lens does this check belong to: “Is stopping being evaluated as a prospective loss from the current reference point, separately from the sunk costs already paid?”", "answerSlug": "prospect-theory-loss-aversion", "answerTitle": "Loss Aversion", "question": "Is stopping being evaluated as a prospective loss from the current reference point, separately from the sunk costs already paid?", "evidenceStatus": "influential and widely estimated; magnitude and robustness debated", "qualification": "Loss aversion is a central component of prospect theory and many studies estimate losses as receiving greater subjective weight than gains around a reference point. However, the effect should not be summarized with one universal coefficient. A 2024 interdisciplinary meta-analysis of 607 estimates reported a mean coefficient near 1.96, while another 2024 meta-analysis of individual risky-choice datasets estimated about 1.31. A 2025 re-analysis of the larger dataset found little evidence of loss aversion in some symmetric, unordered designs, showing that task structure and analysis can materially change the result.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "title": "Escalation of Commitment", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "prospect-theory-loss-aversion", "title": "Loss Aversion", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/" } ], "evidenceClass": "mixed", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-48160eef6b029066", "src-e8a194eeb0017a8a", "src-368a6a9d36d10612", "src-72b6f021c45204d9" ] }, { "scenarioId": "continue-change-stop-project-3", "prompt": "In continue, change, or stop a project, which lens does this check belong to: “Are setbacks leading us to commit more resources without reopening whether this course still deserves the next investment?”", "answerSlug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "answerTitle": "Escalation of Commitment", "question": "Are setbacks leading us to commit more resources without reopening whether this course still deserves the next investment?", "evidenceStatus": "established, but related constructs should be separated", "qualification": "Sunk-cost effects and escalation of commitment overlap but are not interchangeable. Sunk-cost research asks whether irrecoverable prior investments influence current choices. Escalation of commitment describes persistence or additional resource allocation to a failing course of action and can also be driven by personal responsibility, self-justification, project structure, and other factors.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy", "title": "Planning Fallacy", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/" }, { "slug": "logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment", "title": "Escalation of Commitment", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/logical-fallacy-escalation-of-commitment/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-644614d8919a2ee4", "src-25c242b954867ac1", "src-ec03691286f7284e" ] }, { "scenarioId": "continue-change-stop-project-4", "prompt": "In continue, change, or stop a project, which lens does this check belong to: “Which original target, budget, valuation, or deadline is still pulling the current judgment toward it?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "answerTitle": "Anchoring Effect", "question": "Which original target, budget, valuation, or deadline is still pulling the current judgment toward it?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported for numerical judgments; strength depends on anchor type and context", "qualification": "Anchoring is a well-supported effect in which an initial numerical value can pull a later estimate toward it. A 2026 meta-analysis covering 2,601 effect sizes found a large overall effect, but also substantial variation across studies. The effect should not be treated as a rule that every number changes every judgment: incidental anchors, anchors from a different dimension, clearly random values, incentives, and some debiasing conditions were associated with smaller or null effects.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect", "title": "Anchoring Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-anchoring-effect/" }, { "slug": "egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy", "title": "Planning Fallacy", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-4e94d948f6b94566", "src-35855b06b246eebe", "src-639229081285f101", "src-ce811297b2050379" ] }, { "scenarioId": "continue-change-stop-project-5", "prompt": "In continue, change, or stop a project, which lens does this check belong to: “What does comparable completed work say about the cost and time still required from today?”", "answerSlug": "egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy", "answerTitle": "Planning Fallacy", "question": "What does comparable completed work say about the cost and time still required from today?", "evidenceStatus": "well-supported for time estimates; size and causes vary by context", "qualification": "The planning fallacy is a well-documented tendency for people to predict their own task completion times too optimistically. The effect has been observed across different kinds of tasks, but it is not a rule that every plan will run late. Project overruns can also come from changing scope, dependencies, incentives, poor data, deliberate underestimation, or genuinely unusual events, so a late project should not automatically be diagnosed as a planning fallacy.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "title": "Outcome Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/" }, { "slug": "egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy", "title": "Planning Fallacy", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/egocentric-bias-planning-fallacy/" } ], "evidenceClass": "supported", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-7d92150bd312c109", "src-cf328825be4a0674", "src-d6ecdecbd0ffae61", "src-d98817dbf800d030" ] }, { "scenarioId": "continue-change-stop-project-6", "prompt": "In continue, change, or stop a project, which lens does this check belong to: “What evidence would make us stop or materially change the project, and have we actively looked for it?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "answerTitle": "Confirmation Bias", "question": "What evidence would make us stop or materially change the project, and have we actively looked for it?", "evidenceStatus": "well established, broad construct", "qualification": "Confirmation bias is an umbrella label for several ways existing beliefs or hypotheses can influence information search and interpretation. It should not be reduced to one behaviour such as reading only agreeable news, and a preference for confirming tests is not irrational in every task or environment.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-sunk-cost-effect", "title": "Sunk Cost Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-sunk-cost-effect/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias", "title": "Confirmation Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-confirmation-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "title": "Outcome Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-83375467c08e8177", "src-c4e8734b8f1248ee" ] }, { "scenarioId": "continue-change-stop-project-7", "prompt": "In continue, change, or stop a project, which lens does this check belong to: “Would we rate the quality of today’s continue-or-stop process the same way if the eventual outcome went the other direction?”", "answerSlug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "answerTitle": "Outcome Bias", "question": "Would we rate the quality of today’s continue-or-stop process the same way if the eventual outcome went the other direction?", "evidenceStatus": "replicated", "qualification": "Outcome bias occurs when knowledge of a result changes how people evaluate the quality of a decision even when the information available at the time of the decision is held constant. Outcomes can still be relevant for learning, so the error is not 'never look at results'; it is using luck or hindsight as if it had been available to the original decision-maker.", "canonicalBiasUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/", "evidenceUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/#evidence", "options": [ { "slug": "cognitive-bias-outcome-bias", "title": "Outcome Bias", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-outcome-bias/" }, { "slug": "cognitive-bias-sunk-cost-effect", "title": "Sunk Cost Effect", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/cognitive-bias-sunk-cost-effect/" }, { "slug": "prospect-theory-loss-aversion", "title": "Loss Aversion", "canonicalUrl": "https://cognitive-biases.github.io/biases/prospect-theory-loss-aversion/" } ], "evidenceClass": "established", "reviewedAt": "2026-08-18", "sourceIds": [ "src-f1f0400ef362aaa8", "src-1801b1347f89ef91" ] } ] } ] }