How our brain tricks us:
an overview
an overview
What are the cognitive biases? As psychotherapists put it, they are systematic errors which quite often appear in our brains. They can affect our decision-making, twist with our rational perception of the world and, more importantly, they can make us vulnerable in front of a manipulation. There are many examples of such biases (also sometimes labelled as heuristics). It’s important to understand that cognitive biases do not equal logical fallacies. As educational consultant Kendra Cherry put it, «a logical fallacy stems from an error in a logical argument, while a cognitive bias is rooted in thought processing errors often arising from problems with memory, attention, attribution, and other mental mistakes».
In the era of post-truth, misinformation and disinformation can occur at every corner of two worlds, both real and digital. People who use said techniques are trying to get into the mind of an average voter or consumer and manipulate with his or her perception of the reality. In doing so they can try to utilise some of the cognitive biases. That’s why it’s really important to know about them — only by doing so we can protect our thinking process from falling into its own traps.
Neuroscientific And Psychological Aspects
A cognitive bias is a systematic error in thinking. This bias occurs when people perceive information in the world and try to understand or interpret it. The cognitive bias affects the decisions and judgments that people make.
The human brain can do a lot, but it uses a lot of energy. And since energy is limited, the body has to try to conserve energy. And therefore our brain is also geared to use less energy. Cognitive distortions are often the result that happens when our brain tries to conserve energy. The effort is to simplify information processing in order to use less energy. Preconceptions, prototypes, and rules of thumb help us simplify the complex world to conserve energy in cognitive processing. They enable us to understand the world quickly and make good decisions quickly. However, these mechanisms can also sometimes lead us astray.
Our memory can thus become distorted over time. We perceive some things as very important, which at the time, on the other hand, we only noticed marginally. Our decisions are influenced by the changed memory. Furthermore, the cognitive bias also controls our attention. We have little attention, and must choose well what to spend it on. Because of this, subtle biases can creep in and affect the way you see and think about the world.
The concept of cognitive bias was introduced by researchers Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Since then, researchers have described a number of different types of biases that affect decision making in a variety of areas.
The following is an experiment by Kahneman and Tversky (1981) that shows how to explore cognitive biases. The experiment showed that people react differently to factual situations depending on how they are presented. Subjects are told a story in which 600 lives are threatened. Subjects must choose an option:
- Option A: saves 200 for sure
- Option B: 30% probability that all 600 survive, 60% probability that no one is saved.
Both options are of equal value. Most chose safe option A. Then took a different formulation:
- Option A: kills 400 people.
- Option B: causes 30% no one to die, 60% no one to be saved.
Both options are equal. This time, however, option B was chosen by a majority. Our decision is not rational according to a numerical advantage, but according to Frame, whether one has a winning perspective or a losing perspective. We prefer what seems safe to us. And we take more risk when deciding on loss possibilities than when deciding on gain possibilities. Reactions are more extreme for losses than for gains. The following list will again give an overview of the different cognitive biases that have been explored by further experiments:
The concept of cognitive bias was introduced by researchers Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Since then, researchers have described a number of different types of biases that affect decision making in a variety of areas.
The following is an experiment by Kahneman and Tversky (1981) that shows how to explore cognitive biases. The experiment showed that people react differently to factual situations depending on how they are presented. Subjects are told a story in which 600 lives are threatened. Subjects must choose an option:
- Option A: saves 200 for sure
- Option B: 30% probability that all 600 survive, 60% probability that no one is saved.
Both options are of equal value. Most chose safe option A. Then took a different formulation:
- Option A: kills 400 people.
- Option B: causes 30% no one to die, 60% no one to be saved.
Both options are equal. This time, however, option B was chosen by a majority. Our decision is not rational according to a numerical advantage, but according to Frame, whether one has a winning perspective or a losing perspective. We prefer what seems safe to us. And we take more risk when deciding on loss possibilities than when deciding on gain possibilities. Reactions are more extreme for losses than for gains. The following list will again give an overview of the different cognitive biases that have been explored by further experiments:
Actor-observer bias: This bias leads to attributing one's own actions to external causes, while attributing the behavior of others to internal causes. For example, you attribute your high body weight to genetics while blaming others for high fat due to poor diet and lack of exercise.
Anchoring error: we rely too much on the very first piece of information we get. The first piece of information sets an anchor against which we compare everything else. If we first hear a high price for a house, then we will compare all other prices we hear from other houses to that. And it doesn't matter whether the first price was too high or not. What matters is that it was mentioned first and we compare against it.
Attention bias: We focus our attention on some things in particular, but not on others. Other things are simply blanked out by the brain. This is called attention bias. For example, when deciding which house to buy, you may pay attention to the travel time to work, but ignore the heating and quality.
False consensus effect: We are too quick to assume that everyone else thinks the same way we do. This is called the false consensus effect. This effect can also occur when there is a loud minority that appears to be everywhere.
Anchoring error: we rely too much on the very first piece of information we get. The first piece of information sets an anchor against which we compare everything else. If we first hear a high price for a house, then we will compare all other prices we hear from other houses to that. And it doesn't matter whether the first price was too high or not. What matters is that it was mentioned first and we compare against it.
Attention bias: We focus our attention on some things in particular, but not on others. Other things are simply blanked out by the brain. This is called attention bias. For example, when deciding which house to buy, you may pay attention to the travel time to work, but ignore the heating and quality.
False consensus effect: We are too quick to assume that everyone else thinks the same way we do. This is called the false consensus effect. This effect can also occur when there is a loud minority that appears to be everywhere.
Functional fixation: we focus on the function that something has for us. This leads us to look at things in terms of their usefulness to us. This extends not only to tools and objects, but also to people. We see people as performing a certain function and then fail to realize that they could have performed other functions just as well.
Halo effect: Our impression of another person is influenced by how we feel about ourselves. Even if this is not directly caused by the other person. Physical beauty, for example, can lead to the quality of work also being considered higher. Or if we stand on a swaying bridge and are excited, the excitement is also transferred to the people with whom we are on this bridge.
Misinformation effect: Because of what we hear from others, our memory is also affected. We can no longer distinguish between having it from others and having experienced or seen it ourselves. The event can be easily influenced. That is why eyewitness accounts should also be viewed with caution.
Optimism Bias: We baselessly assume that if we do something, it will be better than if others in the same situation did it. We think it is less likely to become unhappy ourselves and easier to achieve success than others. Thus, when we start a marriage, we assume that it will last and do not think about the fact that it has failed for so many others.
The Dunning-Kruger effect: this effect causes us to think we are smarter than we really are. We overestimate our competencies and what we can achieve.
Halo effect: Our impression of another person is influenced by how we feel about ourselves. Even if this is not directly caused by the other person. Physical beauty, for example, can lead to the quality of work also being considered higher. Or if we stand on a swaying bridge and are excited, the excitement is also transferred to the people with whom we are on this bridge.
Misinformation effect: Because of what we hear from others, our memory is also affected. We can no longer distinguish between having it from others and having experienced or seen it ourselves. The event can be easily influenced. That is why eyewitness accounts should also be viewed with caution.
Optimism Bias: We baselessly assume that if we do something, it will be better than if others in the same situation did it. We think it is less likely to become unhappy ourselves and easier to achieve success than others. Thus, when we start a marriage, we assume that it will last and do not think about the fact that it has failed for so many others.
The Dunning-Kruger effect: this effect causes us to think we are smarter than we really are. We overestimate our competencies and what we can achieve.
In-Group Favouritism
In-group favouritism is a «tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others who belong to the same group that they do»
This effect happens even if the distribution into groups was absolutely random, and members of the group have nothing in common at all. The existence of the phenomenon has been proven in a series of experiments conducted by British psychologists Michael Billig and Henri Tajfel. In the beginning, the volunteers took turns looking at pairs of paintings and choosing the one they liked. Then they were divided into groups. Some were told that the distribution was based on their choice, while others were told that they were split randomly.
This effect happens even if the distribution into groups was absolutely random, and members of the group have nothing in common at all. The existence of the phenomenon has been proven in a series of experiments conducted by British psychologists Michael Billig and Henri Tajfel. In the beginning, the volunteers took turns looking at pairs of paintings and choosing the one they liked. Then they were divided into groups. Some were told that the distribution was based on their choice, while others were told that they were split randomly.
Then each of the participants went to a closed booth, where he could distribute real money between the rest of the volunteers. Their identities were hidden, but it was clear which group they belonged to. It turned out that people rewarded their group members more generously. The basis of the distribution did not matter — was it random or not
Many theories try to explain the phenomenon of an in-group favouritism. One of them is based on the idea that we love to categorize everything, even ourselves. And there can be many points of categorization: gender, race, nationality, political preferences, favourite color and football club etc. The only important thing is that, on the basis of these indicators, we divide people into "strangers" and "ours". Because of this, the opinion about a person can differ due to his or her affiliation with said parameters.
Many theories try to explain the phenomenon of an in-group favouritism. One of them is based on the idea that we love to categorize everything, even ourselves. And there can be many points of categorization: gender, race, nationality, political preferences, favourite color and football club etc. The only important thing is that, on the basis of these indicators, we divide people into "strangers" and "ours". Because of this, the opinion about a person can differ due to his or her affiliation with said parameters.
In-group favouritism is extremely difficult to overcome, because it’s deeply rooted in the subconscious of people. However, we can use some tactics to reduce its destructive impact as it was proven scientifically. To understand how, it’s important to understand that in an experiment there were two types of games: dictatorial (DG) and ultimatum (UG). In both, the participant had to decide how to divide the amount of money between himself and the other contestant. In DG, the second person is obliged to agree with the choice of the first participant. However, in the UG, the recipient can accept or reject the offer. If he or she does not agree with the choice of the first participant, then no one gets anything.
In the study called “Profit versus prejudice,” the participants were told that a second person (who they had not seen) either shared their opinion about abortion or held the opposite point of view. In DG, it was found that participants displayed strong in-group favouritism, offering more money to those who agreed with them. However, during UG, the bias completely disappeared. People did not want to lose all their money because the second participant rejects their distribution. The specific stimuli encouraged them to act rationally and blocked the cognitive bias. Another way to fight the in-group favouritism can be joint activities with people of other social groups, which has also been repeatedly proven in scientific works.
The best ideas come as jokes. Make your thinking as funny as possible.
Frequency Illusion
.
.
The best ideas come as jokes. Make your thinking as funny as possible.
You have probably heard about frequency illusion also known as Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. Maybe you first learned about the effect quite recently. And even if not, you will hear about it very soon again. Frequency illusion is a cognitive bias in which, when noticing something for the first time, there is a propensity to notice it over and over again that leads to believe that it has a high regularity. Many people perceive these frequencies as signs of their destiny when scholars give a scientific explanation for the phenomenon. Stanford professor Arnold Zwicky concluded that two psychological processes are responsible for the effect. The first, selective attention, is triggered when a new word, thing, or idea hits you; after that you subconsciously observe it and as a result, you find it surprisingly often. The second process, confirmation bias, convinces you that each observation is additional evidence of your impression that the thing has become ubiquitous overnight.
.
.
The best ideas come as jokes. Make your thinking as funny as possible.
The point here is not a coincidence, but the fact that before we learned something new, we did not pay attention when it slipped through the general flow of information. The modern human brain is the largest and most complex of any creature. But our brain has some weaknesses. One of them is prejudice towards patterns. Our brain's ability to subconsciously filter out objects and pay attention to them sometimes can be an illusion. Our brains are increasingly responding to what we already know, overlooking many other objects.
The illusion effect is actively used by marketers to draw the customer's attention to the product. A number of studies confirm that promoting a product through various advertising methods leads to a high likelihood of a purchase.
The illusion effect is actively used by marketers to draw the customer's attention to the product. A number of studies confirm that promoting a product through various advertising methods leads to a high likelihood of a purchase.
The Affect Heuristic
We used to think that we all are rational and clear-thinking enough. There even exists such a term as Homo economicus, which describes people who optimally pursue their subjectively defined goals. However, modern researchers ultimately came to the conclusion that in reality, it turns out that an economic person is not rational, and economic theories should take into account not human rationality, but human irrationality in decision-making.
The affect heuristic says that people make decisions strongly influenced by their current emotions. You probably noticed that when you are in a good mood, you boldly take on any business and are confident in your success. However, a bad mood is often a guarantee of failure.
The tendency of a person to make decisions based on an emotional state is actively used by pharmaceutical companies. To attract the attention of a potential buyer, advertisers provoke a feeling of anxiety, which can only be eliminated by purchasing the drug.
We used to think that we all are rational and clear-thinking enough. There even exists such a term as Homo economicus, which describes people who optimally pursue their subjectively defined goals. However, modern researchers ultimately came to the conclusion that in reality, it turns out that an economic person is not rational, and economic theories should take into account not human rationality, but human irrationality in decision-making.
The affect heuristic says that people make decisions strongly influenced by their current emotions. You probably noticed that when you are in a good mood, you boldly take on any business and are confident in your success. However, a bad mood is often a guarantee of failure.
The tendency of a person to make decisions based on an emotional state is actively used by pharmaceutical companies. To attract the attention of a potential buyer, advertisers provoke a feeling of anxiety, which can only be eliminated by purchasing the drug.
The whole danger of this effect is that it can lead to wrong decisions, which subsequently have a detrimental effect on our lives. Therefore, psychologists recommend, when making decisions in an emotional state, to carefully weigh all the pros and cons of further action, and also to look at yourself from outside yourself.
Fear Of Regret
How many times have you thought about starting to learn a new language, changing a job, or going out on a date after a tough breakup, but made no effort? The driving force behind this behavior is our fear of regret, which forces us to adhere to the status quo, even if we are intuitively ready to act.
Regret is a very important emotion that evolution has provided us to make learning easier. It helps us learn from our mistakes and not repeat them over and over again. Neuroscience studies show that in the hippocamus, which is responsible for memory, experience of regret and fear of regret are linked by similar neural circuits. This explains why the fear of regret is so powerful.
But how we can be manipulated by the fear of regret? Marketers know the answer to this question. For example, if a user has signed up for a trial subscription to a service, you can remind him that the test period will end soon and the person will no longer be able to use the service.
So how do we deal with our fear of regret in order to achieve what we want in life? In fact, the starting point is realizing how deeply regret affects us. If you find yourself repeatedly failing to achieve your goals in life, perhaps ask yourself if fear of regret is the reason.
Stay Cautious
In conclusion, there are various psychological, neuroscientific and social factors that lure our brain into the depths of the cognitive biases. The important thing to remember is the simple fact that humans are not robots. We make mistakes and manipulative people can use it to their advantage. There is no miracle drug that can prevent us from falling into their traps. But a little bit of simple understanding of the cognitive biases can make it easier for us to spot them.
In conclusion, there are various psychological, neuroscientific and social factors that lure our brain into the depths of the cognitive biases. The important thing to remember is the simple fact that humans are not robots. We make mistakes and manipulative people can use it to their advantage. There is no miracle drug that can prevent us from falling into their traps. But a little bit of simple understanding of the cognitive biases can make it easier for us to spot them.
1) Arnold M. Zwicky. Why are we so illuded? Stanford, September 2006. URL: https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/LSA07illude.abst.pdf (12.10.2021)
2) Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 3(1), 27-52.
3) Cherry K., What Is Cognitve Bias? Verywell Mind, 05 May 2020. URL: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963 (12.10.2021)
4) Efe Efeoğlu., Yurdanur Çalışkan. A Brief History of Homo Economicus From The Economics Discipline Perspective // Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University Journal of Social Science. – 2008. – № 2(1). – С. 28-36.
5) Ehrlinger J., Readinger W. O., Kim B. Decision-making and cognitive biases //Encyclopedia of mental health. – 2016. – Т. 12.
6) Gazal-Ayal, O., & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2010). Let my people go: Ethnic in-group bias in judicial decisions-evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(3), 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01183.x
7) Kahneman D. Article commentary: Judgment and decision making: A personal view //Psychological science. – 1991. – Т. 2. – №. 3. – С. 142-145.
Korteling J. E. H., Toet A. Cognitive biases //Encyclopedia of behavioral neuroscience. 2nd Edn (Amsterdam-Edinburgh: Elsevier Science;). – 2020. – Т. 10.
8) Korteling J. E., Brouwer A. M., Toet A. A neural network framework for cognitive bias //Frontiers in psychology. – 2018. – Т. 9. – С. 1561.
9) Ruhl C., What Is Cognitive Bias? Simply Psychology, 04 March 2021. URL: https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-bias.html (12.10.2021)
10) Shefrin, Hersh, Statman, Meir. The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: theory and evidence // The Journal of Finances. – 1985. – № 40 (3). C. 777-790.
11) Stagnaro, M., Dunham, Y., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Profit versus prejudice: Harnessing self-interest to reduce in-group bias. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(1), 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617699254
12) Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice //science. – 1981. – Т. 211. – №. 4481. – С. 453-458.
Zajonc, R. B. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences // American Psychologist. – 1980. – № 35(2). – С. 151-175
2) Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 3(1), 27-52.
3) Cherry K., What Is Cognitve Bias? Verywell Mind, 05 May 2020. URL: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963 (12.10.2021)
4) Efe Efeoğlu., Yurdanur Çalışkan. A Brief History of Homo Economicus From The Economics Discipline Perspective // Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University Journal of Social Science. – 2008. – № 2(1). – С. 28-36.
5) Ehrlinger J., Readinger W. O., Kim B. Decision-making and cognitive biases //Encyclopedia of mental health. – 2016. – Т. 12.
6) Gazal-Ayal, O., & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2010). Let my people go: Ethnic in-group bias in judicial decisions-evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(3), 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01183.x
7) Kahneman D. Article commentary: Judgment and decision making: A personal view //Psychological science. – 1991. – Т. 2. – №. 3. – С. 142-145.
Korteling J. E. H., Toet A. Cognitive biases //Encyclopedia of behavioral neuroscience. 2nd Edn (Amsterdam-Edinburgh: Elsevier Science;). – 2020. – Т. 10.
8) Korteling J. E., Brouwer A. M., Toet A. A neural network framework for cognitive bias //Frontiers in psychology. – 2018. – Т. 9. – С. 1561.
9) Ruhl C., What Is Cognitive Bias? Simply Psychology, 04 March 2021. URL: https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-bias.html (12.10.2021)
10) Shefrin, Hersh, Statman, Meir. The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: theory and evidence // The Journal of Finances. – 1985. – № 40 (3). C. 777-790.
11) Stagnaro, M., Dunham, Y., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Profit versus prejudice: Harnessing self-interest to reduce in-group bias. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(1), 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617699254
12) Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice //science. – 1981. – Т. 211. – №. 4481. – С. 453-458.
Zajonc, R. B. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences // American Psychologist. – 1980. – № 35(2). – С. 151-175
SOURCES
