Salience Bias

The shift in focus causes shoppers to ignore secondary items and choose more emotionally significant items, even if objective differences are usually not important. In this case, the correlation bias is at risk, because the characteristics of the package of items force consumers to make decisions that do not consider whether the item is a healthy choice. [Sources: 11]

The researchers suggested that giving people real-time feedback about the choices they are about to make is one solution to avoid the relevance bias trap. Policymakers can also take into account importance bias in the hope of mitigating its negative impact on society. In the area of ​​resource consumption, an awareness of relevance bias can motivate people to make environmentally sound decisions. [Sources: 10]

The use of contrast is one way to help in the occurrence of visibility bias; for example, shoppers are now so insensitive to most in-store conditions that it’s important to focus on making your environment so atypical and different so that it doesn’t grab the attention of shoppers. The visibility bias arises from unexpected contrasts between objects and their surroundings. This appeals to our “bias” (or so-called perceptual significance) – a cognitive bias that “predisposes people to focus on issues that are most important or emotionally unexpected, and ignore those that are not relevant, even if it is the distinction is often irrelevant to objective criteria. ” [Sources: 9, 11]

Our tendency to think more about negative events is another example of this kind of behavioral bias. According to the concept of negative forces, prejudice leads us to interpret negative events as more important than positive events. Even if we experience many positive events in a day, negative prejudice will make us focus on a negative event that happened. [Sources: 5]

We can think of this as an asymmetry in the way we process negative and positive events to understand our world, in which “negative events elicit faster and more obvious reactions than non-negative events” (Carretie et al., 2001, p. 75). By directing our conscious attention more towards the positive events and feelings we experience, we can begin to address the preconceived asymmetries of negativity. While there is little we can do about our psychology, we can still prevent attacks by becoming more aware of our biases. Thinking that you are rational despite the obviousness of the irrationality of others is also known as the blind spot bias. [Sources: 5, 9, 12]

This premise, in turn, is based on a number of assumptions about the nature of human inference and the respective roles of cognition and motivation in social judgment and decision making. Confirmation bias, as the term is commonly used in the psychological literature, refers to seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that partially match existing beliefs, expectations, or assumptions. The author examines the evidence for this bias in various forms and provides examples of its functioning in various practical contexts. [Sources: 7, 8]

Anchoring or focusing Anchoring shifting The tendency to rely too heavily on or “anchor” a line or piece of information when making decisions (this is usually the first information received on this issue). Confirmation Bias Confirmation Bias A tendency to seek, interpret, focus, and remember information in a way that confirms your biases. Availability heuristic Accessibility bias The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with increased “availability” in memory, which may depend on how recent memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be. Importance bias Accessibility bias The tendency to focus on the elements that are most important or emotionally unexpected and to ignore those that are irrelevant, even if the distinction is often irrelevant to objective standards. [Sources: 2]

Visibility bias (also known as perceptual significance) is the tendency to use available traits to make judgments about a person or situation. Importance describes how important or emotionally amazing something is. Visibility usually arises from novelty or unexpected events, but it can also be achieved by focusing on this characteristic. [Sources: 1, 3, 6]

This suggests that perceived relevance can influence decisions about preferences. In addition, in the case of high cognitive load and lack of time, a strong influence on food choices was observed. Previous studies have shown that for rapid decision-making speed, significant bias has a greater impact on decision-making than preference (Milosavljevic et al., 2012), and time constraints generally directly affect selection behavior (eg Reutskaja, Nagel, Camerer, and Rangel, 2011; Su And Hertwig, 2011). [Sources: 6]

Such differences are likely to lead to differences in how these emotions are processed and used later in the developmental process, and may themselves be a partial explanation for the negative bias. Moreover, while we have focused on areas of development that are closely related to the emotional sphere in this article, it is likely that negative bias also exists in many areas that are not so closely related to this area. [Sources: 0]

First, it is surprising that the negativity bias that has been observed and studied so widely in one area of ​​psychology (social, emotional and cognitive psychology of adults) has received so little systematic attention in another area (child social, emotional and cognitive psychology). psychology). We hope this article makes it clear that this phenomenon fulfills some important developmental and developmental functions in infants and children and deserves the widest possible study. Finally, we have argued that negativity bias serves as an important developmental adaptive function in helping children avoid potentially harmful stimuli, and is likely to also perform important socio-emotional and socio-cognitive functions. [Sources: 0]

The conspicuous effect examines why, when, and how which elements are “visible” to different people, or which elements we are most attracted to and which we will focus on. Then, in one of the conditions, we manipulated cognitive load to test whether increased cognitive load affects the effect of visibility on food decisions. [Sources: 6]

Participants were more likely to choose foods that showed longer, suggesting that longer exposure and therefore more time spent attending a meal could influence decisions about that product. The visibility bias states that the brain prefers to pay attention to the basic elements of the experience. Motivational relevance is a cognitive process and form of attention that motivates or pushes a person’s behavior towards or from a particular object, perceived event or result. Importance determines which information is most likely to grab attention and have the greatest impact on the perception of the world. [Sources: 1, 6]

The importance of a sign, when viewed in the context of others, helps a person quickly rank large amounts of information based on importance, and then pay attention to what is most important. The WebNeuro online battery also includes self-assessment elements that can be used to assess attribution bias towards anticipation and perception of negative outcomes and events (Rowe et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2008). The Future Events Scale (FES) is a 26-point subjective measure of negativity bias that measures optimism and pessimism across two separate subscales (Anderson, 2000). [Sources: 1, 5]

Pessimistic prejudice. Some people, especially those suffering from depression, tend to overestimate the possibility of bad things happening to them. Proportionality bias We are naturally inclined to assume that there are good reasons for major events, which can also explain our tendency to accept conspiracy theories. [Sources: 2]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652533/

[1]: https://theinfinitekitchen.com/faq/readers-ask-why-is-salience-used/

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[3]: https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Saliency+Bias

[4]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/cognitive-theory

[5]: https://positivepsychology.com/3-steps-negativity-bias/

[6]: https://mcen.com.br/if2pj/salience-bias-psychology-definition

[7]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229191

[8]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

[9]: https://www.cyberbitsetc.org/post/perceptional-invariance-5-psychological-reasons-why-we-keep-believing-cybercriminals

[10]: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/salience-bias/

[11]: https://www.adcocksolutions.com/post/what-is-salience-bias

[12]: https://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-2015-10

Implicit-Association Test

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures the strength of associations between concepts (eg, people of color, gay) and grades (eg, good, bad) or stereotypes (eg, athletic, awkward). The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (eg, black, gay) and grades (eg, good, bad) or stereotypes (eg, athletic, awkward). [Sources: 1, 3]

Using these theoretical ideas, stereotypical associations (such as “black” and “aggression”) can be stored in semantic memory and automatically activated, producing an implicit stereotypical effect. As a method, the IAT can be applied to any combination of word pairs and therefore can be used to examine a range of implicit stereotypes such as “white” and “black” for ethnic stereotypes or “men” and “women”. “” For gender stereotypes, combined with any words associated with stereotypical attributes such as aggression or addiction. [Sources: 0]

Different interventions have different effects on implicit stereotypes (measured by IAT). Because of their widespread distribution in society, in a culture, more or less everyone, even an unbiased person, has implicit stereotypes in semantic memory. Subsequent use of IAT has always shown implicit stereotypes of a range of different social categories, most notably gender and race (Greenwald et al., 2015). [Sources: 0]

In the first part of the IAT, words related to concepts (eg, fat people, thin people) are sorted into categories. The view of the stereotype as a fixed set of attributes associated with a social group dates back to the seminal study of experimental psychology by Katz and Braley (1933). In the third part of the IAT, the categories are combined and you are asked to arrange both the concept and the scoring words. In the second part of the IAT, the words related to assessment are ordered (eg, good, bad). [Sources: 0, 3]

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. was founded in 1807 and has been a valuable source of information and understanding for more than 200 years, helping people all over the world meet their needs and aspirations. [Sources: 2]

 

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201786

[1]: https://askinglot.com/what-is-implicit-association-test-in-psychology

[2]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23027284

[3]: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/iatdetails.html

Frequency Illusion

There are not many scientific papers on frequency illusion, but the effect is very similar to the memory-driven work grab that was studied to understand how attention is directed. There are two reasons for this phenomenon: first, selective attention, which means that your brain is subconsciously looking for additional information on the subject. Second, confirmation bias, which means that every time you see something relevant to a topic, your brain tells you that it’s proof that the topic has caught on in the blink of an eye. One part is higher frequency perception; the second part is confirmation bias, where you feel like it hasn’t happened before with the same frequency. [Sources: 0, 3]

Every time you encounter it, it confirms that your perceptual frequency has increased, and you are more confident that you have been seeing it now. At the same time, you might have seen the same thing 20 times in the last week, but don’t remember why it didn’t pass the attention filter. The fact that you don’t remember can be interpreted as confirming that it didn’t happen, but it’s impossible to extract something from your memory that was not originally coded. [Sources: 17]

The illusion of novelty makes us think that what we have just noticed or learned is a recent phenomenon. The illusion of novelty. The illusion that the phenomenon was observed quite recently has arisen recently. Often used to refer to linguistic phenomena; the illusion that a word or linguistic usage that has only recently been noticed is an innovation when it has actually been established for some time (see also frequency illusion). [Sources: 13, 17]

Select deviation availability deviation. When something makes us know more about something, we tend to pay more attention to something. For example, when we buy a car, we tend to notice similar cars more frequently than before. Selective attention-the brain is very good at eliminating irrelevant information, so we suddenly notice and appear relevant information. In fact, we all process information selectively, even if we think it is not. Confirmation bias occurs when people selectively process information that confirms their beliefs while ignoring information that may challenge or provide evidence against these beliefs, instead of selectively focusing on any information in the environment that seems important or relevant. [Sources: 7, 13, 16]

In terms of confirming bias, people with schizophrenia can “confirm their suspicions” if they begin to pay attention to aspects of their experience that are consistent with the misconception they currently have. If you have certain mental disorders, such as schizophrenia or paranoia, frequency bias can lead you to believe things that are not true and make your symptoms worse. [Sources: 5, 10]

The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon accessibility distortion frequency illusion is that once something is noticed, every instance of the object will be noticed, leading to the belief that it has a high frequency of occurrence (a selection bias). “The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, also called frequency illusion or novelty deviation, is a situation where what you have learned recently seems to be suddenly everywhere. [Sources: 12, 13]

There are two reasons for this phenomenon: First, selective attention, which means that your brain is subconsciously looking for additional information on the subject. First, your brain seems to be excited about what you have learned, and selective attention is happening. [Sources: 3, 4]

According to Stanford linguist Arnold Zwicky, who coined the term “frequency illusion” for this phenomenon in 2006, there is more before your confirmation bias kicks in. When something new triggers an emotional response, your brain starts looking for something. was something that you actively noticed. [Sources: 9]

Suddenly, what you noticed for the first time in your life yesterday begins to appear out of nowhere, here and there, like a short deja vu on steroids. You will probably start to think that what just happened is supernatural, but it is not. However, there is nothing accidental about this, and the explanation is really simple. [Sources: 1, 9, 12]

The frequency illusion is a product of selective attention and confirmation bias, often with a hint of the illusion of novelty. This distorts your perception of frequency, making you think the frequency has changed. [Sources: 17]

The frequency illusion occurs when a person experiences something, for example, finds a song they like on Spotify or gets pregnant, and then believes that this experience or phenomenon is happening all the time. Basically, the illusion of frequency is the feeling that something that you have been thinking about or recently learned suddenly seems much more frequent in your environment than it used to be. The frequency illusion can overlap with social proof because if you hear people argue about something multiple times, seemingly out of the blue, you attribute that sudden attention to the importance of that particular thing. Once something grabs your attention, you are likely to notice almost every case you come across. [Sources: 0, 16, 17, 18]

Pattern recognition is important for many diagnoses, but frequency offset allows you to see patterns without patterns. There are always new things to learn, but they should beware of noticing a patient’s disease just because they have recently read about a certain disease. The scientific community is made up of people, so they are not immune to frequency deviations. [Sources: 10]

When this happens, it is easier to see evidence supporting bias when evidence against it is lacking. A bias can refer to an object, event, concept, idea, word, and so on. As soon as you find something that you didn’t know before, you start noticing it in the weirdest places. Zwicky defined the Frequency Illusion as before he notices … and then believes that something is happening. [Sources: 6, 7, 10]

If a detective trying to solve a crime learns about a certain suspicion through the frequency illusion, then the detective’s mind is ready to pay attention to this suspicion when new relevant information appears. Frequency illusion, also known as the Baader-Meinhoff phenomenon, is a cognitive bias that describes our tendency to see new information, names, ideas, or patterns everywhere as soon as they are brought to our attention. It was named Baader-Meinhoff after this curious psychological fact was first described by a reader of St Paul Pioneer Press. Having just heard about the far-left terrorist group Baader-Meinhoff in West Germany, he saw Baader-Meinhoff everywhere. [Sources: 5, 8]

The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, also known as frequency deviation (or illusion), is the recent concept of internalization (or attention) that has apparently appeared in unexpected places. The more popular term “Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon” is the first online discussion after a commentator heard about the ultra-left terrorist organization Baader-Meinhof Gang (also known as the Red Army faction (RAF)) twice in 24 hours Use on forums. Named after the Baader-Meinhof Group (also known as the Red Army faction), this is a notorious West German radical leftist organization founded in 1970. [Sources: 2, 7, 9]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/july-2020/What-is-the-Baader-Meinhof-Phenomenon

[1]: https://blog.yaware.com/frequency-illusion-or-why-some-words-are-chasing-us/

[2]: https://interestingengineering.com/experiencing-the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon

[3]: https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/baader-meinhof-phenomenon

[4]: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/baader-meinhof-phenomenon.htm

[5]: https://news.ucdenver.edu/what-is-the-frequency-illusion/

[6]: https://productiveclub.com/baader-meinhof-phenomenon/

[7]: https://dqydj.com/baader-meinhof-phenomenon-frequency-bias/

[8]: https://medium.com/gravityblog/16-the-frequency-illusion-388d0a92cd81

[9]: https://doctorspin.org/media-psychology/psychology/baader-meinhof-phenomenon/

[10]: https://www.healthline.com/health/baader-meinhof-phenomenon

[11]: https://moviecultists.com/when-you-start-noticing-something-everywhere

[12]: https://www.adcellerant.com/2019/10/baader-meinhof-phenomenon-and-marketing/

[13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[14]: https://www.sciencealert.com/you-know-how-when-you-learn-a-new-word-you-see-it-everywhere-here-s-why

[15]: https://beyond.britannica.com/can-you-please-explain-the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon

[16]: https://web.colby.edu/cogblog/2018/04/24/that-band-is-really-cool-but-i-swear-its-everywhere/

[17]: https://mentalhealthathome.org/2021/12/03/what-is-frequency-illusion/

[18]: https://www.adzooma.com/blog/marketing-the-frequency-illusion/

Anthropocentric Thinking

Anthropocentric Thinking Is The Tendency To Reason About Unfamiliar Biological Species Or Processes By Analogy To Humans

This confirms and expands the depth of the alleged biopsychological roots of mental anthropomorphism and lays the foundation for studying the presence of anthropomorphism in the philosophy of biology and in the doctrine of evolution, taking into account the mosaic of three hyperactive psychological tendencies. [Sources: 6]

Three of the cognitive structures-teleological thinking, essentialist thinking, and human-centered thinking-are particularly important for understanding common problems and misunderstandings in biology courses. At the same time, cognitive and developmental psychologists described the intuitive concept systems that humans use to reason about biology-teleology, essentialism, and human-centered thinking. We hypothesize that apparently unrelated biological illusions may have common roots in these intuitive cognitive models called cognitive structures. To evaluate the spontaneous use of teleological thinking, essentialist thinking, and anthropocentric thinking in biological scientific reasoning, we constructed 12 misunderstanding statements. [Sources: 3, 4]

Their focus on protecting wild plants and animals and preserving vital parts of species and habitats (1 | -3) included an emphasis on preserving natural resources for humanity (cover of Biological Conservation, Vol. Most natural scientists who followed Darwin) turned to the opposite direction, moving away from humans to other species with a longer evolutionary history and more accessible biological structures, not because of lack of interest, but as a result of the belief that only humans are capable of thinking. [Sources: 0, 5, 7]

First, psychological processes of any kind can be realized only in a biological system, and the mind can only be secreted by the brain. Many scientists think about this, but we know little about how the mind works. How language is processed or how learning works – we know little – consciousness or search for memory, not much. [Sources: 2, 7]

The cognitive explanation we propose may be the basis of these misunderstandings and is called human-centered thinking; it is just a tendency to reason about unknown biological processes or species in a way similar to humans. The second component of anthropocentric thinking is the tendency to reason about unfamiliar biological species or processes by analogy with humans. [Sources: 3, 4]

1) a tendency to view humans as unique and biologically unrelated to the rest of the animal kingdom, and 2) a tendency to reason about other organisms by analogy with humans. In these examples, anthropocentric thinking can lead to a distortion of the role of a person in the biological world, an over-attribution of human (or animal) functions to different organisms (for example, plants), or the personification of physiological processes. Conversely, thinking about non-human species by analogy with humans can also lead to children underestimating the biological properties of species that are very different from humans. [Sources: 3, 4]

In the opposite direction, sociobiology erroneously assumes that if practices in human culture are similar to the behavioral patterns of other species, then if they are (more or less) similar, they are more likely to be explained biologically. Less) is common in humans. A simpler explanation may have other advantages, such as easier to understand or describe, but since animal behavior is the result of natural selection, not the result of an intelligent design process that always provides the best solution, there is no reason to believe that it may be caused by Caused by a simpler process (Mikhalevich, Powell, Logan, 2017). Although the general reasoning model that constitutes psychological anthropomorphism is usually defined as teleological reasoning, that is, thinking that produces an explanatory style that deals with goals, goals, and causes (for example, Mahner and Bunge, 1997; Broaddus, unpublished; Engvild, 2015), and It does not necessarily mean that the underlying biological, cognitive, and evolutionary processes must be unified. [Sources: 0, 6, 7]

This hypothesis may derive from a cognitive concept known as essentialist thinking. When you look at the misconceptions listed at the beginning of this section through the prism of anthropocentric thinking, things like “worry” and “death” are harmful to humans and therefore easily viewed as inevitably harmful to a biological system or organism. [Sources: 4]

The emphasis on “intelligent domestication” demanded by new conservation science is overlooked because even in “domesticated” ecosystems, most of the species present are wild (87), and the processes that support these systems are almost entirely controlled by humans. This respect for the wilderness itself, wherever it may be, underlines the need for efforts to save what is left of the wilderness, parts of the world where human goals are not the primary driving forces and which are often necessary for the conservation of native species. with narrow ranges (94). [Sources: 5]

In this way, the concept of respect for nature and natural sites can act as an open horizon that can be characterized in different contexts and different audiences and cultures to form new relationships with nature that are sustainable for both people and others. [Sources: 5]

We will see that, moving from one of these theories to another, the sphere of moral values ​​extends from people to animals, then to plants, and then to ecosystems. Animal husbandry research is another example of value accusations, given that a fascination with human culture is the driving force, and an attempt to map the cognitive differences between our own monkey species and other monkey species that may explain the origin of our uniqueness. Since non-human animals share some biological and psychological characteristics with humans, and we share communities, land, and other resources, the consideration of non-human animals can greatly contribute to our philosophical endeavors. [Sources: 0, 1]

If, as Wilson and others have argued, “homo sapiens is a common animal,” then there is much to be learned by viewing human experience as part of a broader biological continuum. In biology, humans are a familiar and approachable biological type and therefore are a very tempting source of knowledge that is often misapplied to non-human living things. Those of us who stick to “copy of humans” in AI take our time to think about what humans can do. [Sources: 2, 4, 7]

On the other hand, biological and technological processes will be viewed as similar systems that respond to certain constraints and are likely to have similar basic characteristics. Design, underlying purpose and belief positions benefit biology by providing a cognitive foundation, expressing a powerful explanatory system, facilitating functional generalization, promoting new research questions and results, allowing metaphorical / analogical thinking, and didactically explaining in a concise manner. Ideally, this approach should be developed for teleological thinking in biology. In short, for Norton’s vision to be viable, we need to know how far in the future we need to extend our commitment to the human species and whether we are psychologically capable of doing so. [Sources: 1, 6, 7]

It is wrong to harm the environment through pollution or destruction of habitats because of the damage it is doing to our species that goes beyond the damage it is doing to individuals right now. According to him, environmentalists believe that policies that serve the interests of all mankind in general and in the long term will also serve the interests of nature, and vice versa. However, anthropocentric collectivism goes beyond the human personality and believes that any moral responsibility to the environment rests solely on the interests of the human species as a whole, especially for future generations of people. Anthropocentrism can lean towards the environment, making large sacrifices, and biocentrism towards people who make sacrifices. [Sources: 1]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognition-animal/

[1]: https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/160/10-environment.htm

[2]: https://www.edge.org/responses/what-do-you-think-about-machines-that-think

[3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4353083/

[4]: https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.12-06-0074

[5]: https://www.pnas.org/content/113/22/6105

[6]: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01839/full

[7]: https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft338nb20q;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print

Attentional Bias

Attentional Bias refers to how a person’s perception is affected by selective factors In their attention

Three voluntarily moving stimuli had two empty spaces, while the controlled stimulus had one empty space. If the choice of attention is biased towards controlled stimuli, the response time should be inversely proportional to the participant’s degree of control over the target stimulus. From these results, it can be seen that healthy volunteers, therefore, showed a bias in maintaining attention towards averting stimuli in the first 1000 ms of exposure, and not in the last 1000 ms of exposure. Thus, under these conditions, attention chose controlled and uncontrolled stimuli at approximately the same speed. [Sources: 2, 8]

Finally, in a state of 100%, the target stimulus continually follows the keystroke, creating a strong bias in the choice of attention against it, resulting in faster response times. Under 0% control, the stimulus never moved in the direction of keystroke by the participants, and therefore attentional selection was biased towards the other three stimuli, which actually moved in the direction of keystroke 50% of the time. Under 40% and 60% conditions, the target stimulus was as likely to move in the direction of the keystroke as the uncontrolled stimulus. [Sources: 8]

According to this model, people with high levels of anxiety are more likely to target adverse stimuli, while people with low levels of anxiety may tend to divert attention away from those stimuli. Based on this, we hypothesize that a shift in attention to threat and, in particular, a deficit in withdrawal from interaction will be associated with better results than a shift in attention away from the threat or lack of bias, since these biases can influence attention to the threat or not. characteristics of the stimulus. We also expect that attention to threat and, in particular, deficits in disengagement from threat will not outweigh any bias, as narrowing of attention (Eysenck et al., 2007) and a reduction in context coding can occur in people with whom they interact more. with terrible irritants during exposure sessions. [Sources: 2, 3]

Thus, attentional bias can lead to more active interactions with the threat and increase the likelihood that a person may know that fear-inducing stimuli or their fear-inducing characteristics do not necessarily predict the occurrence of something repulsive. Thus, elucidating the phenomenological characteristics of attention-threatening bias may provide information for researchers studying the factors that modulate the effect of attention-related bias. Subsequent research may establish whether anxiety and other features of attentional bias are causing anxiety or whether a causal relationship between attentional bias and anxiety is specific to the characteristic of attention relief. [Sources: 3, 7]

Attention bias can pose particular problems for people with anxiety disorders, as they can focus their attention on stimuli that seem threatening and ignore information that can calm their fears. Attention bias means that a person selectively works with a certain category or categories of stimuli in the environment, trying to ignore, ignore, or ignore other types of stimuli. [Sources: 0, 1]

For example, a person may selectively pay attention to food stimuli (especially foods that seem particularly tasty). Sexual stimuli can be especially distracting for the other person; fashion-related stimuli can attract the attention of another person. Most relevant to this chapter is that some people are distracted by addictive signals. In any case, when a person has a goal to consume alcohol, he selectively affects the stimuli in the environment that are associated with the production and consumption of alcohol. [Sources: 1]

This feature suggests that after attention has been paid to one threatening stimulus, it will be difficult to divert attention to another stimulus. A third component of attention bias involves threat avoidance, in which the person secretly filters out threats or thoughts from attentional choices and openly avoids dealing with them if they do appear (Hofmann et al., 2012). Attention bias towards negative stimuli occurs after initial focusing of attention, then temporarily intensifies with increasing sign anxiety and appears to last longer only in individuals with high anxiety, while people with low signs of anxiety instead show a bias in keeping attention away from negative images in a later period. stages of processing. In fact, negative information seems to hold attention longer than a neutral stimulus once recorded. [Sources: 2, 3, 7]

Thus, overall, the results support the attention maintenance hypothesis, 34 which postulates, in contrast to the avoidance-vigilance hypothesis, 26 that there is no relief in focusing on threat-related stimuli that maintain attention after detection 33. For example, Mogg and Bradley (2005) investigated the shift in attention to threat as a function of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) versus depression, focusing on the duration of stimulus presentation. Second, the review will focus on threat attention bias in relation to anxiety rather than other types of stimuli that are also associated with attention bias (eg, pain, addiction, depression, or associated cues. To food). In the following sections: (a) we briefly review this study, (b) we describe how dual process models help explain decisions about whether to use an addictive substance, (c) we discuss how different brain loci are involved in distorting attention. … and other types of cue reactivity, and (d) suggest how the results of neurocognitive research can be applied to cognitive learning and future research. [Sources: 1, 2, 7]

There are many evolutionary and cognitive explanations for why certain things continue to distort our attention. Similarly, some psychologists explain how we process different stimuli at different levels of attention, which affects our ability to process multiple stimuli at the same time. [Sources: 6, 9]

The researchers found that people with eating disorders tend to pay more attention to food cues, while people with drug addiction tend to be hypersensitive to drug cues. For people trying to recover from an eating disorder or addiction, this tendency to pay attention to some cues and exclude others can make recovery much more difficult. By working to expand your focus and minimize unnecessary distractions that will use up your mental resources, you can work to overcome this bias. [Sources: 6, 10]

These biases can affect the information you view, your memory of past decisions, and the sources you trust when looking for options. You need to make fair and rational decisions about important things. In your life, like everyone on earth, you have developed some subtle cognitive biases. [Sources: 0]

When psychologists selectively interpret data or ignore unfavorable data to obtain results that support their original hypotheses, this form of bias usually permeates the research field itself. Confirm the deviation. Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to interpret new information as a confirmation of pre-existing beliefs and opinions. Real-world examples Since the Watson experiment in 1960, real examples of confirmation bias have attracted attention. For example, people who are depressed tend to have negative stereotypes about themselves and the world11 and tend to focus on negative information rather than positive information. 12 On the contrary, people who are not depressed tend to be positive. [Sources: 6, 9]

First, the response times are exceptionally long compared to the complexity of the task, suggesting that they may not be diagnostic for when the participants found the research objective. This happens when a person does not notice a stimulus that is in full view of everyone, because his attention is directed to another place. [Sources: 6, 8]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/cognitive-bias

[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/attentional-bias

[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68490-5

[3]: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00968/full

[4]: https://lesley.edu/article/what-the-stroop-effect-reveals-about-our-minds

[5]: https://www.kirtanleader.com/blog/reduce-attentional-biases-with-enneagram

[6]: https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-bias.html

[7]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901130/

[8]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02004-3

[9]: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/attentional-bias/

[10]: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-an-attentional-bias-2795027

Apophenia

Apophenia Is The Tendency To Perceive Meaningful Connections Between Unrelated Things.

Now, when it comes to events in our life that can be randomly distributed over time, from the point of view of our mind, looking for patterns, it seems that they happen in groups, and therefore we can believe that bad things happen to three, that God is testing our faith that we were born under a bad sign. We can imagine that conspiracies arise from the fact that several bad things happen in a row. [Sources: 9]

And it can motivate us to make sense of completely unrelated life events. This means that we often see patterns in random information, and this can be a serious problem. But this means that we can overcome and interpret what is not really there. [Sources: 9]

This is a useful thing in the natural environment, because we do not have a straight line from our brain to reality, we always interpret models. Surprisingly, our brains are very good at picking up these hidden patterns and messages. [Sources: 5, 9]

Thus, apophenia has both sides: it is a deeply human mental habit that can underlie adaptive behavior and reward flights of fantasy or cause all kinds of paranoia and stupidity. There is a strange connection between apophenia, “a potentially pathological tendency to perceive meaningful connections between apparently unrelated things,” and the artist’s receptive mood when creating art. This may be the difference between psychotic and creative use of patterns and connections. [Sources: 0, 6, 8]

However, in extreme cases it can be a symptom of mental dysfunction, for example, as a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia [6], in which the patient sees hostile patterns (eg, a conspiracy to persecute him) in ordinary actions. Apophenia also began to describe the human tendency to unreasonably look for patterns in random information, for example, during gambling. Ultimately, apophenia is associated with a person’s tendency to look for patterns in random information, for example, when gambling. [Sources: 7, 12]

The experience of observing patterns or relationships in random or meaningless data was invented by apophenia by the German neurologist Klaus Conrad. He initially described this phenomenon as a mentally ill thought process, although it is now seen as a ubiquitous feature in human nature. [Sources: 2]

He defined this as “an unmotivated consideration of connections [accompanied by] a particular sense of abnormal meaning.” He defined this as “an unmotivated consideration of connections [accompanied by] a particular sense of abnormal meaning.” [Sources: 12]

He described the early stages of delusional thinking as referential overinterpretations of real sensory perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations. He described the early stages of delusional thinking as referential overinterpretations of real sensory perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations. [Sources: 12]

So, according to the theory, the human brain has evolved into “belief machines” and “pattern recognition machines” that seek to organize messy sensory inputs into meaningful data. Our brains are pattern-discerning machines that connect dots, allowing us to discover meaningful relationships between the mass of sensory inputs we encounter. Rather than simply viewing apophenia as a kind of unfortunate side effect of our cognitive architecture, psychoanalysis encourages us to look at meaning where it seems less obvious. [Sources: 2, 8]

This type of pattern recognition can induce apophenia on the grounds that because the brain is not looking for exact matches, it can detect some characteristics of the match and assume that they are the same. The deletion, distortion, and generalization that occurs at the subconscious level of people make this flow of information manageable, but sometimes at the expense of inaccurate recognition patterns, and this is where the concept of apophenia comes into play. In statistics, apophenia is an example of a Type I error – misidentifying patterns in data. [Sources: 7, 11]

The problem of apophenia in finance has been covered in scientific articles. Personal descriptions of manic patients are almost obsessive, but research on the link between apophenia and bipolar disorder is scarce. For a person whose first understanding of something is usually visual, apophenia is an invaluable tool. Merriam-Webster defines it as the tendency to perceive a meaningful connection or pattern between unrelated or random things. [Sources: 5, 6, 7, 8]

There is another form of apophenia, called pareidolia, which fills the gap in our vision. A common phenomenon caused by hallucinations is seeing a face on a random part of the wall. Many people perceive faces in seemingly random places, such as dirt patterns left in clouds, cars, or on the moon. [Sources: 2, 5]

Motivation is usually used in visual arts, but you use it in your own way, finding patterns between everyday objects and obviously unmodeled places. In 2008, Michael Shermer coined the term “pattern” and defined it as “the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise.” In Believing Brain (2011), Shemer writes that people “tend to instill meaning, intention, and freedom of action into models,” which he calls “motivation”. Good novelists certainly understand this and rely on the expectations and expectations that seemingly unrelated associations evoke in their readers. [Sources: 0, 2, 7]

In fact, all conspiracy theory and other erroneous conclusions, such as player error, are based on a usually useful tendency to piece things together. This is not an exploratory use of joins, where many disparate inputs can be used. However, this is perhaps the most reliable method of preventing distorted thinking and misconnecting unrelated events. [Sources: 5, 6]

Your perception seems important, but it exists in your fantasy. Defending it can lead to harmlessness, which is harmful and harmless depending on the context. In fact, we have never seen other people; on the contrary, we only see those aspects of ourselves fall on them. Today, too many people in our human family insist on seeing connections and meanings in things and events that do not actually exist, leading to delusions and crazy and dangerous conspiracy theories. However, today’s atheism finally forces our society to link unrelated things together and formulate conspiracy theories on this basis. [Sources: 1, 3, 5]

Apophenia is also manifested in the most complex pattern in our human relationship world. Apophenia () is a tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things. Confidence in QAnon depends on trying to establish connections where there is no connection. Brugger explained that when a concept is ignited in the right hemisphere, a distantly related concept will also come to mind, creating a meaningful sense of connection. [Sources: 2, 6, 7, 8]

He described the acute phase of schizophrenia, during which irrelevant details seemed to be full of connections and meaning. The term (German: Apophanie) was coined by the psychiatrist Klaus Konrad in a 1958 publication on the early stages of schizophrenia. [Sources: 8, 12]

In statistics, a problem similar to apophenia is a Type I error or false positive. We are deceived by optical illusions – apophenia of the visual cortex – but we don’t take these cognitive errors personally. [Sources: 2, 8]

You, I, and even the most logical person in the world are subject to confirmation bias; this is how our brain works. Unfortunately, confirmatory bias is just one of the cognitive biases that are hardcoded in our brains; this is what strikes us the most when it comes to conspiracy theories. When combined with our penchant for confirmation bias, conspiracy theories essentially become a powerful predator that preys on people who want to feel like geniuses. Therefore, when you express hatred or lack of empathy towards others, you are not only a reaction, but also a stimulus. [Sources: 1, 5]

— Slimane Zouggari

 

 

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://www.romanovgrave.com/one-question-one-answer/greg-drasler

[1]: https://medium.com/@ankitkoul26/life-without-apophenia-481606fa9fb0

[2]: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reality-play/201207/being-amused-apophenia

[3]: https://ohart.agency/collect/efg-apophenia

[4]: https://soundcloud.com/adamdunetz/sets/apophenia

[5]: https://zilbest.com/psychology/why-we-love-conspiracy-theories/

[6]: https://uxdesign.cc/apophenia-a-patterned-life-45e50bdd5b5f

[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

[8]: https://slate.com/technology/2014/09/apophenia-makes-unrelated-things-seem-connected-metaphors-paranormal-beliefs-conspiracies-delusions.html

[9]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/why-we-are-so-prone-to-seeing-patterns-in-randomne/p0bb6sj8

[10]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apophenia

[11]: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/651026-apophenia-aka-its-rigged/

[12]: https://dbpedia.org/page/Apophenia

The Anchoring Bias

We can attach ourselves to all kinds of values ​​or information, whether we invented them ourselves or gave us 4, but obviously for different reasons. We tend to use anchors or landmarks for decisions and assessments, and sometimes they lead us astray. While we may have a sufficient level of detail to make an informed decision, the anchor can have a huge impact on our decision. This is especially true when deciding what to pay for things, as we are overly influenced by the set price. [Sources: 4, 6, 12]

One way to avoid attachment bias, whether emotional or when making a decision, is to try to start with the attachment state. Once the anchor is established, other judgments are made by moving away from that anchor, and bias arises in interpreting other information around the anchor. As a result, immediate purchasing decisions and many other subsequent decisions are influenced by the original anchor5. Retailers set prices knowing what consumers think about prices in relation to (box: Are arbitrary numbers strong anchors?). [Sources: 1, 5, 12]

For example, a used car dealer might show you the most expensive model before setting a high base for the corresponding used car price. Displaying an original price with a discounted price means that the original price can anchor users’ perception of that value for the items. Here’s an example from the Columbia website where the original price has been canceled, which leads users to view the discount as a bargain. [Sources: 0, 3, 10]

A proposition becomes more compelling if social proof is used as a secondary anchor. With a high link price, discounts seem to be beneficial. A starting price of $ 20,000 for an anchor will reduce the willingness to pay. Knowing this, the seller may deliberately set the peg too high (for example, in the price of the car) so that any future price reduction looks like a discount. [Sources: 3, 4, 11]

In addition to the original research by Tversky and Kahneman, many other studies have shown that pegging can have a significant impact on the appraised value of a property. According to this theory, when we are first presented with binding information, the first thing we do is mentally check to see if it is a plausible value for whatever target or situation we are considering. However, since the activated information lives in our mental model for a specific concept, the anchor bias should be stronger when the triggered information is applicable to the task at hand. Anchor bias means people rely too heavily on this early information, even if they learn more about it later. [Sources: 6, 12, 13]

The problem is that this explanation is less satisfying when the anchor is so obviously useless, as when you tell people that Gandhi was over nine years old when he died. [Sources: 12]

A peg shift can cause a financial market participant, such as a financial analyst or investor, to make the wrong financial decision, such as buying an undervalued investment or selling an overvalued investment. While peg bias is certainly annoying when you’re trying to guess, it can have even more serious implications for your financial decisions. So the next time you try to make an important decision, think a little about the possible impact of anchor bias on your choice. Once you realize how powerful strategic anchors can have in our judgment, you can use that knowledge to your advantage. [Sources: 2, 9, 10]

For example, it can be helpful to study the average sales price for a used car model you are interested in and use that as an anchor to determine whether or not to close the deal. For example, when negotiating a car, the buyer can drop the anchor by bidding first. So instead of bargaining and letting the other party drop the anchor and make the first offer, you too can beat them. By taking your time with the decision-making process, you can gather more information and weaken the anchoring effect. [Sources: 1, 4, 10]

But first, you need to create anchors that will resonate positively with your customers. No one likes to make difficult choices or constantly challenge themselves, so the simplicity and familiarity of anchoring makes this process more engaging and influential than people might think. Good anchors help users form their expectations of what is normal or exceptional, lower the cognitive cost of making decisions, and can even increase the perceived value of a product. The weakness of this bias lies in imprecise anchors that are deliberately used by others to shape public opinion, influence product decisions, and manage behavior. [Sources: 0, 1, 3, 11]

Anchoring effect is a type of cognitive bias because people tend to rely on their first information and may decide too quickly and not shop at better prices or overlook other information, such as product quality. Anchoring effect is a cognitive bias that describes a common human tendency to rely too much on the first piece of information (“anchoring”) when making decisions. [Sources: 1, 5]

In the decision-making process, anchoring occurs when people use initial information to make subsequent judgments. In the decision-making process, anchoring occurs when people use initial information to make subsequent judgments. The anchoring effect is a cognitive bias in which a specific reference point or anchor point affects a person’s decision. Anchoring is a heuristic found in behavioral finance. It describes the subconscious use of irrelevant information, such as the purchase price of a stock, as a fixed reference point (or again) to make subsequent decisions on the stock. [Sources: 5, 7, 9, 13]

Anchoring is a cognitive bias in which the use of arbitrary criteria, such as purchase price or price, is disproportionately weighted in the decision-making process. Anchor offset is an important concept in behavioral finance. Behavioral finance. Behavioral finance is the study of the influence of psychology on the behavior of investors or financial professionals. Careful research and evaluation of the factors influencing the markets or the price of securities is necessary to eliminate bias in decision-making in the investment process. [Sources: 9, 14]

Anchor bias occurs when people rely too much on information that already exists or the first information they find when making decisions. Anchoring most often occurs when consumers lack strong evidence or knowledge. Anchoring is especially popular when people are dealing with new concepts. Anchoring is the fact that people tend to hold on to the first (or else) information they come across and allow their subsequent actions, such as evaluations, arguments, and conclusions, to be made about it. [Sources: 3, 8, 14]

A person’s tendency to rely heavily on the first information they receive when making decisions is called the anchoring effect. 2 Anchoring effect is a cognitive bias: a systematic thinking error that affects people’s judgment and decision-making. Anchoring bias, anchoring effect, or anchoring heuristic is a cognitive psychology finding that people overestimate the first information they receive. [Sources: 1, 12]

#### Sources #####

[0]: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/anchoring-principle/

[1]: https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2021/04/01/the-anchoring-effect

[2]: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-anchoring-bias-2795029

[3]: https://www.abtasty.com/blog/anchoring-bias-decision-making/

[4]: https://boycewire.com/anchoring-bias-definition-and-examples/

[5]: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/

[6]: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/anchoring-bias/

[7]: https://coglode.com/research/anchoring-bias

[8]: https://www.sagu.edu/thoughthub/the-affects-of-anchoring-bias-on-human-behavior

[9]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anchoring.asp

[10]: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stretching-theory/201902/outsmart-the-anchoring-bias-in-three-simple-steps

[11]: https://percipiocompany.com/anchoring-bias/

[12]: https://www.spring.org.uk/2021/07/anchoring-bias.php

[13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)

[14]: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/anchoring-bias/

Cognitive bias

According to wikipedia, “a cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment”. This bias tends to be more pervasive here than elsewhere and tends to be more extreme than the norm. In most cases where this problem arises it is not due to random variation in the mental state of one or more people. Instead the bias may be a subtle but widespread problem. For example:

1. People become less inclined to engage to the right than others (e.g., those with low self-control or the opposite attitude). It can be especially prevalent in those with certain social conditions, including low self-esteem, under stress, and in people who are depressed.

2. People are less likely to accept or approve of a positive or negative mental state (e.g., people who are not aware of problems and therefore cannot engage to the right should be referred to social services).

What factors are most related to this problem? It is worth noting that the most likely cause for this tendency is:

A significant bias is associated with many psychiatric conditions that can cause social disaffection. A significant bias is also associated with other major factors. This bias may be more common in people with chronic depression who are not aware of the illness or are depressed in particular as compared to people with normal psychological well character.

If we looked at the frequency of these major factors, we would expect to see something like the following pattern, which would predict how many people would experience this.

— Slimane Zouggari