But there was only one object at home, and there was nothing to compare with. Shoppers in stores are often in a comparison mode, evaluate products next to each other, and are hypersensitive to the slightest differences. When people evaluate options independently, they tend to focus on easily measurable attributes. [Sources: 0, 11]
But when comparing these two options, they can consider attributes that are difficult to evaluate. The difference bias indicates that comparing two options, just like in a joint evaluation, even small differences between the options are obvious. When the small quantitative difference between the two options is amplified by direct comparison, the difference bias occurs. Prejudice gives too much qualitative value to small differences of little value, such as technological products or important life decisions. [Sources: 3, 7, 11]
A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology explains that people compare and experiment with options in different ways. Psychologists believe that when we compare options, we are acting in different ways, rather than experimenting with them. In making a choice, we are in a comparison mode, sensitive to small differences between options, as I choose a TV. But when we live by our decisions, we are in a mode of experience: there are no other options with which to compare our experience. [Sources: 1, 7]
We often pay more attention to insignificant quantitative differences and choose the option that doesn’t actually bring us the most happiness. Rather than optimizing what makes us happiest in the long run, let’s play “find the difference” around attributes that don’t really matter. While marketers can use this bias to sell us things that might not make us feel better, there is no reason why we should continue to fall in love with their gimmicks. By understanding our cognitive quirks, such as our bias about differences, we can outsmart our own brains. [Sources: 1, 9]
These biases distort thinking, influence beliefs, and influence the decisions and judgments people make every day. Background and History Confirmation bias is an example of how people sometimes process information in an illogical and distorted way. The process of making decisions and processing information by people is often biased, because people simply interpret information from their point of view. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional and often results in conflicting information being ignored. [Sources: 4, 8]
Importance Confirmation bias is important because it can lead people to forcibly hold false beliefs or give more weight to information that supports their beliefs than the evidence supports. Confirmation bias, the tendency to process information by seeking or interpreting information in accordance with existing beliefs. Confirming bias. The tendency to seek, interpret, focus, and memorize information in a way that confirms your biases. Blind Spot Bias The tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or the ability to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself. [Sources: 5, 8]
Social Comparison Bias The tendency to make decisions in favor of potential candidates who do not compete with their particular strengths. Social desirability bias. The tendency to overestimate socially desirable characteristics or behavior to oneself and underestimate socially undesirable characteristics or behavior. Status quo bias The tendency to prefer things to remain relatively unchanged (see also loss aversion, donation effect, and systemic rationale). [Sources: 5, 12]
Addiction to social comparison The tendency in hiring decisions in favor of potential candidates who do not compete with their particular strengths. Optimism bias. A tendency to be overly optimistic, overestimate favorable and pleasant outcomes (see also wishful thinking, valence effect, bias for positive outcomes). Outcome bias The tendency to judge a decision based on its final outcome rather than the quality of the decision at the time it was made. [Sources: 5, 12]
Module function attribution is incorrect. In human-computer interaction-people tend to have system errors when interacting with robots. Automation bias The tendency to rely too much on automated systems, which can lead to incorrect automated information overwriting correct decisions. Automation bias The tendency to rely too much on automated systems, which can lead to incorrect automated information overwriting correct decisions. [Sources: 5, 12]
Negativity bias A psychological phenomenon in which people have more unpleasant memories than positive ones. Negative effect. The tendency of people, when assessing the reasons for the behavior of a person who they do not like, to attribute their positive behavior to the environment, and negative – to the inner nature of a person. Confirmation bias also manifests itself in people’s tendency to seek positive examples. By interacting with people who, in their opinion, have certain personalities, they will ask questions to those people who biasedly support the beliefs of the recipients. [Sources: 8, 12]
But in the case of design reviews, I find that offsetting the differences is usually useful because the people doing the reviews are professionals who need to understand the true meaning and importance of the various attributes. [Sources: 11]
The evaluability hypothesis describes another phenomenon that psychologists observe when studying how people choose an option. When analyzing these two options, people tend to worry about the quantitative value they think will affect happiness. The framing effect is a kind of cognitive bias, when people present equivalent options, they will make different decisions based on the way these options are expressed. In our previous example, we observed this phenomenon when analyzing the reliability of the two designs, which can be expressed as a small increase in uptime or a significant decrease in downtime. [Sources: 7, 11]
These shots tend to be a little more nuanced, but we can take a look at both ends of the spectrum to clarify the point. These frames may not completely influence our decision, like verbal, valuable, positive and negative frames, but in fact they can influence our decision. This can significantly affect how we interpret the machine and how we relate to it. For example, higher values lead us to believe that this is a better deal. [Sources: 2]
Hindsight bias This is sometimes called the “knew it all” effect — the tendency to view past events as predictably as they happened. The theory behind this bias is that we tend to overestimate the impact of future events on our emotional state. While this concept differs from discrimination bias, the two are interrelated. [Sources: 5, 10]
Difference bias, a concept in decision theory, is the tendency to view two options as more distinguishable when judged simultaneously than when judged separately. Difference bias is the tendency to view two options as more different when they are judged simultaneously than when they are judged separately. [Sources: 0, 3]
Psychological research shows how discriminating bias can prevent you from accurately predicting how much happiness a life object or decision will bring. Among many biases in the brain, I fell prey to discrimination bias: a tendency to overestimate the effect of small quantitative differences when comparing options. [Sources: 1, 7]
We now see that the quality difference between the two options is not as important as we expected. In our example above, the two designs initially looked very similar, but when compared, the differences became more apparent. Default effect When choosing between multiple options, the default option tends to be used. Focus effect. The tendency to overemphasize one aspect of the event. [Sources: 5, 10, 11]
— Slimane Zouggari
##### Sources #####
[0]: https://www.adcocksolutions.com/post/no-17-of-36-distinction-bias
[1]: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/automatic-you/201803/distinction-bias-why-you-make-terrible-life-choices
[2]: https://boycewire.com/framing-effect-definition-and-examples/
[3]: https://nlpnotes.com/2014/03/22/distinction-bias/
[4]: https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763
[5]: https://uxinlux.github.io/cognitive-biases/
[6]: https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Distinction+Bias
[7]: https://www.brescia.edu/2018/07/understanding-distinction-bias-in-decision-making/
[8]: https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias
[9]: https://www.nirandfar.com/distinction-bias/
[10]: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/distinction-bias/
[11]: https://effectivesoftwaredesign.com/2012/10/21/the-psychology-of-reviews-distinction-bias-evaluability-hypothesis-and-the-framing-effect/
[12]: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-78635-566-920161032/full/html