Actor-Observer Bias

bias

Explain your behavior situationally but others’ behavior dispositionally.

Perspective differences create leniency for oneself and harsher judgments for the same actions by others.

Anchoring Bias

bias

Rely too heavily on the first number or idea encountered.

Initial values become mental anchors, so later judgments stay tethered to that reference point even when better evidence arrives.

Availability Heuristic

bias

Judge likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.

Vivid, emotional, or recent events seem more common than they are, leading to distorted risk assessments.

Blind-Spot Bias

bias

Assume you are less biased than others.

People detect cognitive errors in peers yet deny their own susceptibility, limiting self-correction.

Confirmation Bias

bias

Favor information that matches existing beliefs.

People selectively seek, interpret, and remember evidence that supports prior views while dismissing conflicting data, which entrenches opinions.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

bias

Low performers overrate their competence.

Without adequate skill people lack the insight to recognize errors, so they display unjustified confidence.

Framing Effect

bias

Let phrasing or context sway decisions.

The same facts framed as gains versus losses trigger different emotional reactions and choices.

Fundamental Attribution Error

bias

Overemphasize traits over situations when judging others.

Observers attribute someone’s behavior to character while ignoring context, yet excuse their own actions with situational factors.

Halo Effect

bias

Let one positive trait color the whole impression.

Attractive or successful people are assumed to excel elsewhere because the first impression spills over.

Hindsight Bias

bias

View past events as having been obvious.

After learning the outcome, people reconstruct memory so the result feels inevitable, masking genuine uncertainty.

Horn Effect

bias

Let one negative trait taint overall judgment.

A single flaw causes observers to downgrade other abilities or motives unfairly.

In-Group Bias

bias

Favor members of your own group.

Shared identity boosts trust and generosity for insiders while outsiders receive less benefit of the doubt.

Loss Aversion

bias

Feel losses more strongly than gains.

People exert more effort to avoid losing $10 than to gain the same amount, shaping negotiation and investing behavior.

Negativity Bias

bias

Give extra weight to bad news.

Negative information exerts a stronger psychological pull than positive information of similar magnitude.

Optimism Bias

bias

Expect better outcomes than evidence suggests.

People believe they are less at risk and more likely to succeed than peers, encouraging action but downplaying hazards.

Out-Group Homogeneity Bias

bias

See members of other groups as all the same.

Limited exposure and stereotypes make outside groups appear uniform, masking individual differences.

Overconfidence Bias

bias

Overestimate personal knowledge or accuracy.

Confidence routinely exceeds actual skill, leading to bold predictions and resistance to corrective feedback.

Pessimism Bias

bias

Expect negative outcomes despite reasonable prospects.

Threats and failures are overweighted, discouraging opportunity pursuit and shading judgments.

Primacy Effect

bias

Give extra weight to what you learned first.

Early impressions anchor later evaluations, so initial information dominates judgments even after new data arrives.

Recency Bias

bias

Overweight the most recent information.

Fresh events crowd out older evidence in memory, skewing trend analysis and reviews.

Representativeness Heuristic

bias

Assume something belongs to a category because it looks typical.

Surface similarity overrides base-rate data, prompting stereotyping and faulty probability judgments.

Self-Serving Bias

bias

Credit yourself for wins and blame outside forces for losses.

This protects ego but hinders learning because personal mistakes go unexamined.

Status Quo Bias

bias

Prefer keeping things the same.

Potential disruption or regret makes people stick with current arrangements even when change could help.

Sunk Cost Effect

bias

Continue investing because past resources were spent.

Irrecoverable costs irrationally influence future commitments, prolonging failing projects.

Ad Hominem

fallacy

Attack the person rather than the claim.

By focusing on character or motives, the argument itself goes untested while the audience is swayed by insult.

Ambiguity (Equivocation)

fallacy

Exploit double meanings to mislead.

A key term shifts definition during the argument, creating the appearance of logic while relying on semantic confusion.

Anecdotal

fallacy

Use personal stories instead of data.

Singular experiences are treated as conclusive evidence even when broader statistics disagree.

Appeal to Authority

fallacy

Treat an authority’s word as proof.

Expertise can inform but cannot replace evidence; citing status bypasses critical evaluation.

Appeal to Emotion

fallacy

Use feelings in place of logic.

Fear, pride, pity, or anger are stirred to secure agreement without citing relevant facts.

Appeal to Nature

fallacy

Argue something is good because it is “natural.”

Naturalness alone is treated as moral proof even though nature includes both helpful and harmful traits.

Bandwagon

fallacy

Argue something is true because it is popular.

Popularity or social momentum substitutes for supporting facts.

Begging the Question

fallacy

Assume the claim that needs proof.

The premise already presumes its conclusion, so nothing new is demonstrated.

Burden of Proof

fallacy

Shift the obligation to disprove a claim.

The claimant demands opponents refute an assertion rather than providing supporting evidence.

Circular Reasoning

fallacy

Use a conclusion as evidence for itself.

The premise and conclusion restate each other, so no independent support exists for the claim.

Composition/Division

fallacy

Assume the whole shares parts’ traits or vice versa.

What is true of individuals is projected onto the group, or group attributes are projected onto each member without justification.

False Dilemma

fallacy

Present only two options when more exist.

Complex issues are forced into either/or framing that ignores viable alternatives.

Gambler’s Fallacy

fallacy

Believe past random events change future odds.

In independent events people expect streaks to “balance out,” leading to faulty predictions.

Genetic Fallacy

fallacy

Judge an idea solely by its origin.

The source of a claim—who said it or where it came from—is used to accept or reject it instead of examining its merits.

Hasty Generalization

fallacy

Draw a broad rule from limited cases.

Insufficient or unrepresentative samples are treated as proof about entire groups or trends.

Middle Ground

fallacy

Assume the compromise between extremes is true.

Splitting the difference is treated as evidence even when one extreme lacks any support.

No True Scotsman

fallacy

Redefine a group to exclude counterexamples.

Definitions are tightened ad hoc so contradictory cases are dismissed rather than the claim being revised.

Personal Incredulity

fallacy

Reject a claim because it is hard to imagine.

Lack of understanding or imagination substitutes for evidence, so complex ideas are dismissed outright.

Post Hoc (False Cause)

fallacy

Assume B followed A because A caused B.

Temporal order is mistaken for causation without ruling out coincidence or other drivers.

Red Herring

fallacy

Introduce an irrelevant point to distract.

Attention shifts to a side issue, derailing evaluation of the original claim or evidence.

Slippery Slope

fallacy

Claim a small step will trigger extreme results.

Speculative chains of events are asserted without demonstrating the causal links or probabilities involved.

Special Pleading

fallacy

Invent exceptions without justification.

Rules apply to everyone else but are waived for oneself or one’s claim using ad hoc reasons.

Straw Man

fallacy

Misrepresent an argument to refute it easily.

A distorted version of the opponent’s view is attacked, leaving the real position unchallenged.

Tu Quoque

fallacy

Dismiss criticism by accusing the accuser.

Pointing out hypocrisy shifts focus away from the original charge without addressing its validity.

Attempt to Sell a Product or Service

manipulation

Content nudges toward a purchase or signup.

Calls-to-action, value claims, or urgency cues are embedded in the narrative to drive commercial conversion rather than purely inform.

Biased Writer Voice

manipulation

Authorial tone signals favoritism or disdain.

Word choice, emphasis, or loaded language steers the reader toward a preferred interpretation rather than neutrally presenting information.

Indoctrination

manipulation

Uses directive framing to tell the audience what to think or do.

The language directly or indirectly instructs the reader or listener what they should think, know, or do, steering them toward the speaker's preferred conclusion without acknowledging competing facts, interpretations, or reasonable alternatives.

Politically Left Leaning Bias

manipulation

Frames issues to favor left-leaning viewpoints.

Assumptions, language, or topic selection align with progressive positions, downplaying counterarguments or conservative perspectives.

Politically Right Leaning Bias

manipulation

Frames issues to favor right-leaning viewpoints.

Assumptions, language, or topic selection align with conservative positions, downplaying counterarguments or progressive perspectives.

Quote-first Misdirection

manipulation

Leads with an inflammatory quote before revealing the source.

A provocative quotation is presented in the headline or a prominent position as if it reflects the writer's own factual framing, and only later is its true source identified, forcing the reader to recalibrate after the initial impression lands.

Unattributed Quote

manipulation

Presents a quote without naming the source.

Statements are framed as quotations but the speaker or publication is omitted, making it hard to verify accuracy, context, or credibility.