Availability heuristic
The tendency to judge frequency, risk, or importance by how easily examples come to mind.
EstimationAssociationMedia & politicsPersonal decisions
Applied Context
Biases In News Reading
A domain hub for reading headlines, breaking stories, threads, commentary, and corrections without letting vividness or repetition become evidence.
Use this when
Use this hub when a claim is moving quickly, emotionally, or repeatedly and you need to slow the jump from exposure to belief.
Guiding question
Is this story changing what I know, or mostly changing what feels available, repeated, tribal, or urgent?
Bias cluster
These are the entries most likely to matter in this domain. Use the cluster to compare nearby pulls before choosing a label.
Availability cascade
A belief becoming more plausible through repeated public repetition, social uptake, and feedback.
Hypothesis AssessmentAssociation
Continued influence effect
Misinformation continues to influence memory and reasoning about an event, despite the misinformation having been corrected.
RecallInertia
Illusory truth effect
The tendency to believe that a statement is true if it is easier to process, or if it has been stated multiple times, regardless of its actual veracity.
Hypothesis AssessmentAssociation
Confirmation bias
The tendency to notice, seek, and remember evidence that supports the story you already prefer more readily than evidence that threatens it.
Hypothesis AssessmentOutcomeMedia & politicsResearch & evidence
Motivated reasoning
The tendency to use reasoning as a defense lawyer for desired conclusions rather than as an impartial search for what is most likely true.
Hypothesis AssessmentSelf-PerspectiveMedia & politicsPersonal decisions
Base-rate neglect
The tendency to underweight general prevalence information when vivid case-specific details are available.
EstimationBaselineResearch & evidenceForecasting & planning
Survivorship bias
The tendency to learn from the visible winners while overlooking the invisible failures that dropped out of view.
Hypothesis AssessmentOutcomeResearch & evidenceForecasting & planning
Negativity bias
The tendency to give bad news, threats, criticism, and losses more psychological weight than equally sized positives.
Opinion ReportingRecallAssociationBaselineMedia & politicsTeams & management
Apophenia
The tendency to perceive meaningful connections or patterns between unrelated things.
Causal AttributionOutcome
Frequency illusion
The tendency to notice something once and then feel as if it is suddenly everywhere.
RecallBaseline
Clustering illusion
The tendency to overestimate the importance of small runs, streaks, or clusters in large samples of random data.
Hypothesis AssessmentOutcome
Workflow
The hub is meant to change the process, not just supply labels.
Separate exposure from evidence
Write what you actually learned from the item, then write what merely became more vivid or easier to recall.
Restore the denominator
Ask what base rate, comparison group, missing sample, or non-newsworthy background rate would change the interpretation.
Track correction quality
If a correction appears, check whether it replaces the old causal story or only subtracts the false claim.
Watch for
- Anecdotes that feel like trends before the denominator appears.
- Corrections that leave the original explanatory frame intact.
- Claims that feel stronger because many outlets are repeating the same weak source.
- Stories that make an opponent's motives feel obvious faster than the facts justify.
Starter protocol
- Read the headline and write the implied causal story in one sentence.
- Name the strongest missing denominator or comparison class.
- Search for one disconfirming or context-widening source before sharing.
- Use the media-narrative prompt only after you have pasted the exact claim or passage.
Use the existing curriculum
These are the closest learning paths and short self-checks for this context.
Evidence And Explanation
Biases that corrupt sampling, explanation, and the interpretation of evidence before a confident belief hardens.
8 biases
Foundational
50 min
What makes a weak sample or flattering story feel like a strong explanation?
Best for research, diagnostics, policy, media literacy, and analytical work.
Misinformation, Memory, And Crowds
A path for the way repeated claims spread, harden, survive correction, and recruit social uptake long after the original evidence deserved it.
9 biases
Applied
50 min
How do repetition, correction failure, and crowd uptake combine to make weak claims feel increasingly settled?
Best for media literacy, moderation, public reasoning, classrooms, and anyone working in information-rich environments.
Conflict, Threat, And Tribe
A path for the biases that make disagreement feel hostile, tribal, or morally diagnostic faster than the facts support.
7 biases
Applied
45 min
How does conflict become a story about enemies before it becomes a careful account of what happened?
Best for dialogue, mediation, team conflict, moderation, and political reasoning.
Before You Share The Story
A media and discourse check for salience, repetition, and flattering narrative compression.
Foundational
Before sharing a claim
4 min
Question: Is this memorable because it is representative, or because it is dramatic and easy to circulate?
- Ask what denominator or rate is missing from the anecdote.
- Check whether repetition has made the story feel truer than the evidence warrants.
- Look for the missing non-dramatic cases.
- Separate what is vivid from what is prevalent.
Before You Trust The Repeat
A quick information check for claims that feel increasingly true because they are circulating smoothly, not because they have been freshly verified.
Applied
Before treating circulation as proof
4 min
Question: What part of this claim's plausibility is coming from repetition, correction failure, or visible uptake rather than from direct support?
- Trace the claim back to its earliest evidential source rather than its most repeated retelling.
- Ask whether the correction, if one exists, offered a real replacement explanation or only a retraction.
- Separate source count from repetition count and from popularity count.
- Name what would still support the claim if the social circulation signal were hidden.
Before You Read Hostility Into It
A conflict check for ambiguous behavior that is starting to look more malicious than the evidence actually shows.
Applied
Before assigning hostile intent
4 min
Question: What else could explain this besides threat, contempt, or bad faith?
- Describe the behavior first without mind-reading intent into it.
- List at least two non-hostile explanations that still fit the facts.
- Notice whether group identity is shaping whose motives you trust.
- Ask what additional observation would really justify the hostile interpretation.
Optional AI prompt kits for this domain
Use these only after the concrete case is written clearly enough for a model to widen the frame instead of merely echoing it.
Media Narrative Bias Scan
Use this when you want help separating vividness, repetition, and narrative fit from actual representativeness in an article, thread, or speech.
Use when: Paste the relevant excerpt or provide a link and enough context for the model to quote the key passage accurately.
Availability heuristicNegativity biasSurvivorship biasBase-rate neglectApopheniaClustering illusionFrequency illusion
Open optional prompt
Analyze the passage below for cognitive-bias pressure rather than for partisan agreement or disagreement. Your tasks: 1. Quote the most vivid or emotionally loaded claims. 2. Identify which cognitive biases the passage may be exploiting or triggering in readers. 3. Explain whether the passage substitutes anecdote, salience, repetition, or winner-story logic for representative evidence. 4. List what denominator, base rate, missing sample, or comparison would be needed to evaluate the claim more responsibly. 5. End with three discussion questions for a reader who wants to stay calibrated. Passage to analyze: [PASTE PASSAGE OR LINK CONTEXT HERE]
Misinformation Residue Scan
Use this when a claim has already been corrected or contested, but you suspect the first version is still quietly shaping explanation and uptake.
Use when: Paste the original claim, the correction if one exists, and the current explanation or conversation that still seems influenced by the earlier version.
Continued influence effectAvailability cascadeBandwagon effectConfirmation biasFalse memoryFrequency illusion
Open optional prompt
Analyze the material below as a misinformation-residue scan. Your tasks: 1. Restate the original false or disputed frame and the later correction separately. 2. Explain what explanatory work the original frame was doing for readers or listeners. 3. Identify signs that the earlier frame is still influencing memory or reasoning after correction. 4. Suggest a replacement explanation that could occupy the space the misinformation used to fill. 5. End with three questions that would help a team or reader stop reasoning with the old frame. Material to scan: [PASTE THE CLAIM, CORRECTION, AND CURRENT DISCUSSION HERE]
Case studies in the neighborhood
These cases are pulled from the linked bias pages so the hub stays connected to concrete examples.
Abraham Wald and bullet holes on returning aircraft
Analysts first considered reinforcing the parts of planes that showed the most bullet holes, until Wald pointed out that the missing planes were the crucial unseen data.
Why it fits: The visible survivors looked like the full sample until the invisible failures were restored conceptually.
World War II
Bad is stronger than good
Research collected under the phrase 'bad is stronger than good' shows that negative events, traits, and feedback often have more psychological impact than comparable positives.
Why it fits: The asymmetry is not only moral or strategic. It is a weighting pattern that makes bad signals dominate the record.
2001
Biased assimilation and attitude polarization
People on opposing sides who read the same mixed evidence about capital punishment often came away more confident in the conclusion they already favored.
Why it fits: The asymmetry was not only in what was noticed but in how the same evidence was granted or denied force depending on the desired answer.
1979
Biased assimilation in polarized evidence review
People exposed to the same mixed evidence about a disputed topic often came away more convinced of the side they already favored.
Why it fits: The evidence did not merely persuade differently. It was interpreted through a preserving filter.
1979
Conspiracy-board style pattern hunting
Apophenia is often illustrated through situations where unrelated signals, names, dates, or events are woven into a hidden-order story that feels too meaningful to dismiss as coincidence.
Why it fits: The persuasive force comes from the pattern-feel itself long before the links have survived independent testing.
Overview case
Corrected fire-warehouse narratives
People can continue citing corrected details from a fire story in later inferences when the correction does not provide a strong replacement explanation.
Why it fits: The mind keeps using the first causal frame because the retraction alone did not rebuild the story.
Modern cognitive psychology