Human choices made at random exhibit predictable systematic biases
Extensive research in behavioral economics and psychology demonstrates that human decision-making is consistently influenced by predictable cognitive biases and heuristics rather than being purely random or entirely rational.
The retrieved papers consistently support the claim that human decisions, even when seemingly arbitrary or non-rational, exhibit systematic patterns of cognitive bias across fields such as finance, medicine, law, and general decision-making. No papers refute this well-established consensus in behavioral economics.
Jafar Rezaei, Alireza Arab, Mohammadreza Mehregan. Equalizing bias in eliciting attribute weights in multiattribute decision‐making: experimental research. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2262
This study demonstrates that decision-makers systematically exhibit equalizing bias when assigning attribute weights.
See more details
Inga Chira, Michael Adams, Barry Thornton. Behavioral Bias Within The Decision Making Process. 2011. https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v6i8.2456
This paper reviews empirical evidence showing that cognitive errors and systematic behavioral biases consistently distort individual decision-making.
Shurui Xu. The Impact of Behavioral Bias on Investment Decision-Making. 2023. https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v15i.9348
This review highlights how behavioral finance principles demonstrate systematic, non-rational patterns in financial choices driven by cognitive factors.
Eyal Zamir, Doron Teichman. Judicial Decision-Making. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190901349.003.0016
This chapter details how predictable heuristics and biases such as anchoring and hindsight bias systematically impact judicial decision-making.
Michael Hallek, Axel Ockenfels, Daniel Wiesen. Behavioral Economics Interventions to Improve Medical Decision-Making.. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0275
This paper notes that behavioral biases and cognitive patterns contribute significantly to predictable gaps in medical decision-making.
Insook Cho, David W Bates. Behavioral Economics Interventions in Clinical Decision Support Systems.. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1641221
This review finds that clinicians consistently exhibit predictable cognitive biases and heuristics, such as framing and status-quo bias, during medical decisions.
David W Chambers. Behavioral economics.. 2009. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20415136/
This overview explains that human irrationality and fuzzy thinking in estimation and probabilities are systematic and predictable rather than random.
Andrew M Williams, Peggy J Liu, Kelly W Muir, Evan L Waxman. Behavioral economics and diabetic eye exams.. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.04.006
This study outlines how default and present biases systematically undermine preventive health adherence, such as regular eye examinations.
Stephen Whyte, Laura Bray, Ho Fai Chan, Raymond J Chan, Jeremy Hunt, Tim S Peltz, Uwe Dulleck, Dietmar W Hutmacher. Cognitive Bias and Therapy Choice in Breast Reconstruction Surgery Decision-Making.. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008903
This empirical study finds uniform and prevalent cognitive biases affecting medical and surgical choice across patients and professionals alike.
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
Challenge the receipt
Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt