62,734
edits
Changes
no edit summary
| 1998 || Experiment || {{w|Impact bias}} || . "In Gilbert et al., 1998, there was a conducted study on individuals participating in a [[job interview]]. The participants were separated into two groups; the ''unfair decision condition'' (where the decision of being hired was left up to a single MBA student with sole authority listening to the interview) and the ''fair decision condition'' (where the decision was made by a team of MBA students who had to independently and unanimously decide the fate of the interviewee). Then, certain participants were chosen to forecast how they would feel if they were chosen or not chosen for the job immediately after learning if they had been hired or fired and then they had to predict how they would feel ten minutes after hearing the news. Then following the interview, all participants were given letters notifying them they had not been selected for the job. All participants were then required to fill out a questionnaire that reported their current happiness. Then after waiting ten minutes, the experimenter presented all the participants with another questionnaire that once again asked them to report their current level of happiness." || "{{w|Impact bias}} refers to a human tendency to overestimate emotional responses to events and experiences"<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Medway |first1=Dominic |last2=Foos |first2=Adrienne |last3=Goatman |first3=Anna |title=Impact bias in student evaluations of higher education |journal=Studies in Higher Education |doi=10.1080/03075079.2015.1071345 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2015.1071345 |accessdate=7 May 2020}}</ref>
|-
| 1998 || || {{w|implicitImplicit-association test}} || The {{w|implicit-association test}} is introduced in the scientific literature by {{w|Anthony Greenwald}}, Debbie McGhee, and Jordan Schwartz.<ref name = "Greenwald 1998">{{Citation | title = Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test | year = 1998 | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | pages = 1464–1480 | volume = 74 | issue = 6 | last1 = Greenwald| first1 = Anthony G. | last2 = McGhee | first2 = Debbie E. | last3 = Schwartz | first3 = Jordan L.K. | doi=10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 | pmid=9654756}}</ref> || The {{w|implicit-association test}} is "a reaction time based categorization task that measures the differential associative strength between bipolar targets and evaluative attribute concepts as an approach to indexing implicit beliefs or biases."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Healy |first1=Graham F. |last2=Boran |first2=Lorraine |last3=Smeaton |first3=Alan F. |title=Neural Patterns of the Implicit Association Test |doi=10.3389/fnhum.2015.00605 |pmid=26635570 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4656831/ |pmc=4656831}}</ref>
|-
| 1998 || || || {{w|Less-is-better effect}}. || "In a 1998 study, Hsee, a professor at the Graduate School of Business of {{w|The University of Chicago}}, discovered a less-is-better effect in three contexts: "(1) a person giving a $45 scarf (from scarves ranging from $5-$50) as a gift was perceived to be more generous than one giving a $55 coat (from coats ranging from $50-$500); (2) an overfilled ice cream serving with 7 oz of ice cream was valued more than an underfilled serving with 8 oz of ice cream; (3) a dinnerware set with 24 intact pieces was judged more favourably than one with 31 intact pieces (including the same 24) plus a few broken ones.""<ref name="hsee">{{cite journal|last=Hsee|first=Christopher K.|title=Less Is Better: When Low-value Options Are Valued More Highly than High-value Options|journal=Journal of Behavioral Decision Making|year=1998|volume=11|issue=2|pages=107–121|doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199806)11:2<107::AID-BDM292>3.0.CO;2-Y |url=http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/christopher.hsee/vita/papers/LessIsBetter.pdf}}</ref> || "The {{w|less-is-better effect}} is the tendency to prefer the smaller or the lesser alternative when choosing individually, but not when evaluating together."<ref>{{cite web |title=Why we prefer the smaller or the lesser alternative |url=https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/less-is-better-effect/ |website=thedecisionlab.com |accessdate=7 May 2020}}</ref>
|-
| 1999 || Concept introduction || {{w|Dunning–Kruger effect}} || The psychological phenomenon of illusory superiority known as {{w|Dunning–Kruger effect}} is identified as a form of cognitive bias in Kruger and Dunning's 1999 study, ''Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments''.<ref name="Kruger">{{cite journal |last=Kruger |first=Justin |last2=Dunning |first2=David |date=1999 |title=Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments |journal={{w|Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}} |volume=77 |issue=6 |pages=1121–1134|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121 |pmid=10626367}}</ref> ||
| 1999 || || {{w|Spotlight effect}} || The term "{{w|spotlight effect}}" is coined by {{w|Thomas Gilovich}} and Kenneth Savitsky.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |pmid = 10707330|year = 2000|last1 = Gilovich|first1 = T.|title = The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance|journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume = 78|issue = 2|pages = 211–222|last2 = Medvec|first2 = V. H.|last3 = Savitsky|first3 = K.|doi = 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.211|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131030215508/http://www.psych.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Gilo.Medvec.Sav_.pdf}}</ref> The phenomenon first appears in the world of psychology in the journal ''{{w|Current Directions in Psychological Science}}''. ||
|-
| 1999 || Social bias || {{w|Naïve cynicism}} || The formal proposal of {{w|naïve cynicism}} comes from Kruger and Gilovich's study called "'Naive cynicism' in everyday theories of responsibility assessment: On biased assumptions of bias".<ref name="Kruger 1999">{{cite journal|last1=Kruger|first1=Justin|last2=Gilovich|first2=Thomas|title='Naive cynicism' in everyday theories of responsibility assessment: On biased assumptions of bias.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|date=1999|volume=76|issue=5|pages=743–753|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.743}}</ref> [[economics]],<ref name="Heath 2006">{{cite journal|last1=Heath|first1=Joseph|title=Business ethics without stakeholders|journal=Business Ethics Quarterly|volume=16|issue=4|pages=533–557|url=http://benjaminferguson.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Heath-2006-Business-Ethics-Quarterly.pdf|doi=10.5840/beq200616448|date=2006}}</ref> || {{w|Naïve cynicism}} is "the tendency of laypeople to expect other people’s judgments will have a motivational basis and therefore will be biased in the direction of their self-interest."<ref>{{cite web |title=Naive Cynicism |url=http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/decision-making/naive-cynicism/ |website=psychology.iresearchnet.com |accessdate=16 July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| 2002 || || Concept introduction {{w|Attribute substitution}} || {{w|Daniel Kahneman}} and {{w|Shane Frederick}} propose the process of {{w|attribute substitution}}.<ref name="revisited">{{cite book |last= Kahneman |first=Daniel |first2=Shane |last2=Frederick |title=Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment |editor=Thomas Gilovich |editor2=Dale Griffin |editor3=Daniel Kahneman |publisher =Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |year=2002 |pages=49–81 |chapter=Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment |isbn=978-0-521-79679-8}}</ref> || "{{w|Attribute substitution}} occurs when an individual has to make a judgment (of a target attribute) that is computationally complex, and instead substitutes a more easily calculated heuristic attribute."<ref>{{cite web |title=Attribute substitution- a quick guide |url=https://biasandbelief.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/attribute-substitution/ |website=biasandbelief.wordpress.com |accessdate=7 May 2020}}</ref>
|-
| 2002 || Research || {{w|Bystander effect}} || {{w|Bystander effect}}. Research indicates that priming a social context may inhibit helping behavior. Imagining being around one other person or being around a group of people can affect a person's willingness to help.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Garcia | first1 = S.M. | last2 = Weaver | first2 = K. | last3 = Darley | first3 = J.M. | last4 = Moskowitz | first4 = G.B. | year = 2002 | title = Crowded minds: the implicit bystander effect | url = | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 83 | issue = 4| pages = 843–853 | doi=10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.843| pmid = 12374439 }}</ref> || "The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation."<ref>{{cite web |title=Bystander Effect |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/bystander-effect |website=psychologytoday.com |accessdate=7 May 2020}}</ref>
