Cognitive Biases

CogBias

A practical cognitive-bias site with clear definitions, learning paths, assessments, self-audits, and debiasing tools.

Coverage Map

A living audit of how much editorial support each bias has.

The catalog is intentionally wide. This page makes the depth unevenness visible so future passes can target source trails, cases, assessments, comparisons, and teaching kits where they will matter most.

Featured entries needing the next pass

These are important public-facing pages that still have room for more sourcing, cases, assessments, or comparison support.

Conjunction fallacy

The tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than a more general version of those same conditions

Strong scaffold 61/100 1 sources 2 cases 1 assessments 0 comparisons

Lowest-coverage entries

These are the most useful targets when broad catalog depth becomes the next editorial priority.

Additive bias

The tendency to solve problems through addition, even when subtraction is a better approach

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Aesthetic–usability effect

A tendency for people to perceive attractive things as more usable

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Agent detection bias

The inclination to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Anthropocentric thinking

The tendency to use human analogies as a basis for reasoning about other, less familiar, biological phenomena

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Anthropomorphism

Characterization of animals, objects, and abstract concepts as possessing human traits, emotions, or intentions. The opposite bias, of not attributing feelings or thoughts to another person, is dehumanised perception, a type of objectification

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Assumed similarity bias

Where an individual assumes that others have more traits in common with them than those others actually do

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Attentional bias

The tendency of perception to be affected by recurring thoughts

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Backfire effect

A tendency to react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening one's previous beliefs

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Ballot order effect

Where candidates who are listed first often receive a small but statistically significant increase in votes compared to those listed in lower positions

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Barnum effect

This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, graphology, and some types of personality tests

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Ben Franklin effect

Where a person who has performed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Berkson's paradox

The tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional probabilities

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Bizarreness effect

Bizarre material is better remembered than common material

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Boundary extension

Remembering the background of an image as being larger or more expansive than the foreground

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Cheerleader effect

The tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Childhood amnesia

The retention of few memories from before the age of four

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

Common source bias

The tendency to combine or compare research studies from the same source, or from sources that use the same methodologies or data

Catalog-only 0/100 0 sources 0 cases 0 assessments 0 comparisons

How the score works

This is an editorial planning heuristic, not a truth score. It rewards source trails, case studies, assessment items, path/check/prompt links, context hubs, comparison guides, kits, and hand-authored page modules.

Use it for

Choosing the next enrichment pass, balancing flagship pages against long-tail coverage, and spotting pages that need concrete cases before they can teach well.

Do not use it for

Deciding whether a bias is important, valid, or settled. It only measures how richly this site currently supports the entry.