So, What Are Cognitive Biases?

  • Geoffrey EllisEmail author


Despite more than 40 years of research into the field and the increasing use of the term in the media, there is still some uncertainty and even mystery over cognitive biases. This chapter provides a background to the topic with the aim to clarify what is meant by cognitive biases. After introducing some uses and misuses of the term, examples of common biases are presented. This is followed by a brief history of the research in the area over the years which illustrates the continued debate on cognitive biases and decision-making. Work in the emerging field of cognitive biases in visualization, prior to this publication, is outlined which concerns both the interpretation of the visualization and the visualization tools, such as visual analytic systems. Finally, we discuss the challenging issue of debiasing - how to mitigate the undesirable impact of cognitive biases on judgments.


  1. 1.
    Ali N, Peebles D (2013) The effect of Gestalt laws of perceptual organization on the comprehension of three-variable bar and line graphs. Hum Factors 55(1):183–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argenta C, Hale CR (2015) Analyzing variation of adaptive game-based training with event sequence alignment and clustering. In: Proceedings of the third annual conference on advances in cognitive systems poster collection, p 26Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnott D (1998) A taxonomy of decision biases. Monash University, School of Information Management and Systems, CaulfieldGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baron J (2008) Thinking and deciding, 4th edGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    BBC (2014) Horizon: how we really make decisions.
  6. 6.
    Brydges NM, Hall L (2017) A shortened protocol for assessing cognitive bias in rats. J Neurosci Methods 286:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bush RM (2017) Serious play: an introduction to the sirius research program. SAGE Publications, Sage, CA: Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Business-Insider (2013) 57 cognitive biases that screw up how we think.
  9. 9.
    Carter CR, Kaufmann L, Michel A (2007) Behavioral supply management: a taxonomy of judgment and decision-making biases. Int J Phys Distrib Logistics Manage 37(8):631–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cho I, Wesslen R, Karduni A, Santhanam S, Shaikh S, Dou W (2017) The anchoring effect in decision-making with visual analytics. In: Visual analytics science and technology (VAST)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooper N, Da Silva A, Powell S (2016) Teaching clinical reasoning. ABC of clinical reasoning. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 44–50Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Correll M, Gleicher M (2014) Error bars considered harmful: exploring alternate encodings for mean and error. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 20(12):2142–2151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Croskerry P (2016) Our better angels and black boxes. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the British Association for Accident & Emergency MedicineGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Croskerry P (2017) Cognitive and affective biases, and logical failures. Diagnosis: interpreting the shadowsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Croskerry P, Singhal G, Mamede S (2013) Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Qual Saf 2012Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Daron JD, Lorenz S, Wolski P, Blamey RC, Jack C (2015) Interpreting climate data visualisations to inform adaptation decisions. Clim Risk Manage 10:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dimara E, Bezerianos A, Dragicevic P (2017) The attraction effect in information visualization. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 23(1):471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunbar NE, Miller CH, Adame BJ, Elizondo J, Wilson SN, Schartel SG, Lane B, Kauffman AA, Straub S, Burgon K, et al (2013) Mitigation of cognitive bias through the use of a serious game. In: Proceedings of the games learning society annual conferenceGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edwards W, Lindman H, Savage LJ (1963) Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychol Rev 70(3):193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ellis G (ed) (2014) DECISIVe 2014 : 1st workshop on dealing with cognitive biases in visualisations. IEEE VIS 2014, Paris, France.
  21. 21.
    Ellis G, Dix A (2015) Decision making under uncertainty in visualisation? In: IEEE VIS2015.
  22. 22.
    Evans JSB (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fendley ME (2009) Human cognitive biases and heuristics in image analysis. PhD thesis, Wright State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fiedler K, von Sydow M (2015) Heuristics and biases: beyond Tversky and Kahnemans (1974) judgment under uncertainty. In: Cognitive psychology: Revisiting the classical studies, pp 146–161Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    George JF, Duffy K, Ahuja M (2000) Countering the anchoring and adjustment bias with decision support systems. Decis Support Syst 29(2):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gigerenzer G (1996) On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and TverskyGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Research Group et al (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gilovich T, Griffin D (2002) Introduction-heuristics and biases: then and now. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment pp 1–18Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL, Meyer AN, Sorensen A, Lenfestey N, Tant E, Henriksen K, LaBresh K, Singh H (2012) Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Qual SafGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Green TM, Ribarsky W, Fisher B (2008) Visual analytics for complex concepts using a human cognition model. In: IEEE symposium on visual analytics science and technology, VAST’08, 2008. IEEE, New York, pp 91–98Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haselton MG, Bryant GA, Wilke A, Frederick DA, Galperin A, Frankenhuis WE, Moore T (2009) Adaptive rationality: an evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias. Soc Cogn 27(5):733–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hernandez I, Preston JL (2013) Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias. J Exp Soc Psychol 49(1):178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heuer RJ (1999) Psychology of intelligence analysis. United States Govt Printing Office.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heuer RJ, Pherson RH (2010) Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis. Cq Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hilbert M (2012) Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychol Bull 138(2):211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hogarth R (1987) Judgment and choice: the psychology of decision. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics Biases Psychol Intuitive Judgment 49:81Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1996) On the reality of cognitive illusions. American Psychological AssociationGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Keren G, Teigen KH (2004) Yet another look at the heuristics and biases approach. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making pp 89–109Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Khan A, Breslav S, Glueck M, Hornbæk K (2015) Benefits of visualization in the mammography problem. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 83:94–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kretz DR (2015) Strategies to reduce cognitive bias in intelligence analysis: can mild interventions improve analytic judgment? The University of Texas at DallasGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kretz DR, Granderson CW (2013) An interdisciplinary approach to studying and improving terrorism analysis. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on intelligence and security informatics (ISI). IEEE, New York, pp 157–159Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kretz DR, Simpson B, Graham CJ (2012) A game-based experimental protocol for identifying and overcoming judgment biases in forensic decision analysis. In: 2012 IEEE conference on technologies for homeland Security (HST). IEEE, New York, pp 439–444Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Manoogian J, Benson B (2017) Cognitive bias codex.
  48. 48.
    Meehl PE (1954) Clinical versus statistical prediction: a theoretical analysis and a review of the evidenceGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Micallef L, Dragicevic P, Fekete JD (2012) Assessing the effect of visualizations on Bayesian reasoning through crowdsourcing. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 18(12):2536–2545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Miller S, Kirlik A, Kosorukoff A, Tsai J (2008) Supporting joint human-computer judgment under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 52. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 408–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Norman G (2014) The bias in researching cognitive bias. Adv Health Sci Educ 19(3):291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nussbaumer A, Verbert K, Hillemann EC, Bedek MA, Albert D (2016) A framework for cognitive bias detection and feedback in a visual analytics environment. In: 2016 European intelligence and security informatics conference (EISIC). IEEE, New York, pp 148–151Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Peebles D (2008) The effect of emergent features on judgments of quantity in configural and separable displays. J Exp Psychol: Appl 14(2):85Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Peebles D, Cheng PCH (2003) Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph reading task. Hum Factors 45(1):28–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pinker S (1990) A theory of graph comprehension. Artificial intelligence and the future of testing pp 73–126Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pronin E, Lin DY, Ross L (2002) The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28(3):369–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    RECOBIA (2012) European Union RECOBIA project.
  58. 58.
    Remus WE, Kottemann JE (1986) Toward intelligent decision support systems: an artificially intelligent statistician. MIS Q pp 403–418Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Roelofs S, Boleij H, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ (2016) Making decisions under ambiguity: judgment bias tasks for assessing emotional state in animals. Frontiers Behav Neurosci 10:119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rudolph S, Savikhin A, Ebert DS (2009) Finvis: applied visual analytics for personal financial planning. In: IEEE symposium on visual analytics science and technology, 2009. VAST 2009. IEEE, New York, pp 195–202Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sacha D, Senaratne H, Kwon BC, Ellis G, Keim DA (2016) The role of uncertainty, awareness, and trust in visual analytics. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 22(1):240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Schlüns H, Welling H, Federici JR, Lewejohann L (2017) The glass is not yet half empty: agitation but not Varroa treatment causes cognitive bias in honey bees. Anim Cogn 20(2):233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Simon HA (1957) Models of man; social and rational. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Soon CS, Brass M, Heinze HJ, Haynes JD (2008) Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nat Neurosci 11(5):543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Stanovich KE, West RF (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav Brain Sci 23(5):645–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tversky B (1991) Distortions in memory for visual displays. Spatial instruments and spatial displays pp 61–75Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Valdez AC, Ziefle M, Sedlmair M (2018) Priming and anchoring effects in visualization. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 24(1):584–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Verbeek E, Ferguson D, Lee C (2014) Are hungry sheep more pessimistic? the effects of food restriction on cognitive bias and the involvement of ghrelin in its regulation. Physiol Behav 123:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Virine L, Trumper M (2007) Project decisions: the art and science. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wall E, Blaha LM, Franklin L, Endert A (2017) Warning, bias may occur: a proposed approach to detecting cognitive bias in interactive visual analytics. In: IEEE conference on visual analytics science and technology (VAST)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wichman A, Keeling LJ, Forkman B (2012) Cognitive bias and anticipatory behaviour of laying hens housed in basic and enriched pens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 140(1):62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Xiong C, van Weelden L, Franconeri S (2017) The curse of knowledge in visual data communication. In: Talk given at the information visualization research satellite event at vision sciences society annual meeting, St. Pete Beach, FLGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zacks J, Tversky B (1999) Bars and lines: a study of graphic communication. Memory Cogn 27(6):1073–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zhang J, Norman DA (1994) Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cogn Sci 18(1):87–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Zhang Y, Bellamy RK, Kellogg WA (2015) Designing information for remediating cognitive biases in decision-making. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 2211–2220Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ziemkiewicz C, Kosara R (2010) Implied dynamics in information visualization. In: Proceedings of the international conference on advanced visual interfaces. ACM, New York, pp 215–222Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Zuk T, Carpendale S (2007) Visualization of uncertainty and reasoning. In: International symposium on smart graphics. Springer, Berlin, pp 164–177Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Data Analysis and Visualization GroupUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations