Bias

For other uses, see Bias (disambiguation).

Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is inaccurate, closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.^[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.^[2]

Interpretations of the random patterns of craters on the Moon. A common example of a perceptual bias caused by pareidolia.

Etymology

The word appears to derive from Old Provençal into Old French biais, "sideways, askance, against the grain". Whence comes French biais, "a slant, a slope, an oblique".^[3]

It seems to have entered English via the game of bowls, where it referred to balls made with a greater weight on one side. Which expanded to the figurative use, "a one-sided tendency of the mind", and, at first especially in law, "undue propensity or prejudice".^[3] or ballast, used to lower the centre of gravity of a ship to increase stability and to keep the ship from one side.^[4]

Types

Cognitive biases

Main articles: Cognitive bias and List of cognitive biases

A cognitive bias is a repeating or basic misstep in thinking, assessing, recollecting, or other cognitive processes.^[5] That is, a pattern of deviation from standards in judgment, whereby inferences may be created unreasonably.^[6] People create their own "subjective social reality" from their own perceptions,^[7] their view of the world may dictate their behaviour.^[8] Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.^[9][10][11] However some cognitive biases are taken to be adaptive, and thus may lead to success in the appropriate situation.^[12] Furthermore, cognitive biases as an example through education may allow faster choice selection when speedier outcomes for a task are more valuable than precision.^[13] Other cognitive biases are a "by-product" of human processing limitations,^[14] coming about because of an absence of appropriate mental mechanisms, or just from human limitations in information processing.^[15]

Anchoring

Main article: Anchoring

Anchoring is a psychological heuristic that describes the propensity to rely on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions.^[16][17][18] According to this heuristic, individuals begin with an implicitly suggested reference point (the "anchor") and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate.^[2] For example, the initial price offered for a used car sets the standard for the rest of the negotiations, so that prices lower than the initial price seem more reasonable even if they are still higher than what the car is worth.^[19][20]

Apophenia

Main articles: Apophenia and Pareidolia

See also: Hindsight bias

Apophenia, also known as patternicity,^[21][22] or agenticity,^[23] is the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data. Apophenia is well documented as a rationalization for gambling. Gamblers may imagine that they see patterns in the numbers which appear in lotteries, card games, or roulette wheels.^[24] One manifestation of this is known as the "gambler's fallacy".

Pareidolia is the visual or auditory form of apophenia. It has been suggested that pareidolia combined with hierophany may have helped ancient societies organize chaos and make the world intelligible.^[25][26]

Attribution bias

Main article: Attribution bias

An attribution bias can happen when individuals assess or attempt to discover explanations behind their own and others' behaviors.^[27][28][29] People make attributions about the causes of their own and others' behaviors; but these attributions do not necessarily precisely reflect reality. Rather than operating as objective perceivers, individuals are inclined to perceptual slips that prompt biased understandings of their social world.^[30][31] When judging others we tend to assume their actions are the result of internal factors such as personality, whereas we tend to assume our own actions arise because of the necessity of external circumstances. There are a wide range of sorts of attribution biases, such as the ultimate attribution error, fundamental attribution error, actor-observer bias, and self-serving bias.

Examples of attribution bias:^[32]

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias has been described as an internal "yes man", echoing back a person's beliefs like Charles Dickens' character Uriah Heep.^[33]

Main article: Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that contradicts it.^[34] The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations). Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.^[35][36]

Framing

Main articles: Cultural bias and Framing (social sciences)

Framing involves the social construction of social phenomena by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, and so on. It is an influence over how people organize, perceive, and communicate about reality.^[37] It can be positive or negative, depending on the audience and what kind of information is being presented. For political purposes, framing often presents facts in such a way that implicates a problem that is in need of a solution. Members of political parties attempt to frame issues in a way that makes a solution favoring their own political leaning appear as the most appropriate course of action for the situation at hand.^[38] As understood in social theory, framing is a schema of interpretation, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes, that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events.^[39] People use filters to make sense of the world, the choices they then make are influenced by their creation of a frame.

Cultural bias is the related phenomenon of interpreting and judging phenomena by standards inherent to one's own culture. Numerous such biases exist, concerning cultural norms for color, location of body parts, mate selection, concepts of justice, linguistic and logical validity, acceptability of evidence, and taboos. Ordinary people may tend to imagine other people as basically the same, not significantly more or less valuable, probably attached emotionally to different groups and different land.

Halo effect and horn effect

Main articles: Halo effect and Horn effect

The halo effect and the horn effect are when an observer's overall impression of a person, organization, brand, or product influences their feelings about specifics of that entity's character or properties.^[40][41][42]

The name halo effect is based on the concept of the saint's halo, and is a specific type of confirmation bias, wherein positive sentiments in one area cause questionable or unknown characteristics to be seen positively. If the observer likes one aspect of something, they will have a positive predisposition toward everything about it.^{[43][44][45][46]} A person's appearance has been found to produce a halo effect.^[47] The halo effect is also present in the field of brand marketing, affecting perception of companies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).^{[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]}

The opposite of the halo is the horn effect, when "individuals believe (that negative) traits are inter-connected."^[55] The term horn effect refers to Devil's horns.^{[citation needed]} It works in a negative direction: if the observer dislikes one aspect of something, they will have a negative predisposition towards other aspects.^[56]

Self-serving bias

Main article: Self-serving bias

Self-serving bias is the tendency for cognitive or perceptual processes to be distorted by the individual's need to maintain and enhance self-esteem.^[57] It is the propensity to credit accomplishment to our own capacities and endeavors, yet attribute failure to outside factors,^[58] to dismiss the legitimacy of negative criticism, concentrate on positive qualities and accomplishments yet disregard flaws and failures. Studies have demonstrated that this bias can affect behavior in the workplace,^[59] in interpersonal relationships,^[60] playing sports,^[61] and in consumer decisions.^[62]

Status quo bias

Main article: Status quo bias

Status quo bias is an emotional bias; a preference for the current state of affairs. The current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point, and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss. Status quo bias should be distinguished from a rational preference for the status quo ante, as when the current state of affairs is objectively superior to the available alternatives, or when imperfect information is a significant problem. A large body of evidence, however, shows that status quo bias frequently affects human decision-making.^[63]

Conflicts of interest

Main article: Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest is when a person or association has intersecting interests (financial, personal, etc.) which could potentially corrupt. The potential conflict is autonomous of actual improper actions, it can be found and intentionally defused before corruption, or the appearance of corruption, happens. "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."^[64] It exists if the circumstances are sensibly accepted to present a hazard that choices made may be unduly affected by auxiliary interests.^[65]

Bribery

Main article: Bribery

Bribery is giving of money, goods or other forms of recompense to in order to influence the recipient's behavior.^[66] Bribes can include money (including tips), goods, rights in action, property, privilege, emolument, gifts, perks, skimming, return favors, discounts, sweetheart deals, kickbacks, funding, donations, campaign contributions, sponsorships, stock options, secret commissions, or promotions.^[67] Expectations of when a monetary transaction is appropriate can differ from place to place. Political campaign contributions in the form of cash are considered criminal acts of bribery in some countries, while in the United States they are legal provided they adhere to election law. Tipping is considered bribery in some societies, but not others.

Favoritism

Main article: In-group favoritism

Favoritism, sometimes known as in-group favoritism, or in-group bias, refers to a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.^[68][69] This has been researched by psychologists, especially social psychologists, and linked to group conflict and prejudice. Cronyism is favoritism of long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications.^[70] Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives.^{[71][72][73][74]}

Lobbying

Box offered by tobacco lobbyists to Dutch Member of the European Parliament Kartika Liotard in September 2013

Main article: Lobbying

Lobbying is the attempt to influence choices made by administrators, frequently lawmakers or individuals from administrative agencies.^[75][76][77] Lobbyists may be among a legislator's constituencies, or not; they may engage in lobbying as a business, or not. Lobbying is often spoken of with contempt, the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law in order to serve their own interests. When people who have a duty to act on behalf of others, such as elected officials with a duty to serve their constituents' interests or more broadly the common good, stand to benefit by shaping the law to serve the interests of some private parties, there is a conflict of interest. This can lead to all sides in a debate looking to sway the issue by means of lobbyists.

Regulatory issues

Main articles: Industry self-regulation and Regulatory capture

Self-regulation is the process whereby an organization monitors its own adherence to legal, ethical, or safety standards, rather than have an outside, independent agency such as a third party entity monitor and enforce those standards.^[78] Self-regulation of any group can create a conflict of interest. If any organization, such as a corporation or government bureaucracy, is asked to eliminate unethical behavior within their own group, it may be in their interest in the short run to eliminate the appearance of unethical behavior, rather than the behavior itself.

Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that can occur when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.^[79][80] Regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether.^[81] Regulatory capture is a risk to which a regulatory agency is exposed by its very nature.^[82][83]

Shilling

Main article: Shill

Shilling is deliberately giving spectators the feeling that one is an energetic autonomous client of a vendor for whom one is working. The effectiveness of shilling relies on crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shilling is illegal in some places, but legal in others.^[84] An example of shilling is paid reviews that give the impression of being autonomous opinions.

Statistical biases

Main article: Bias (statistics)

Statistical bias is a systematic tendency in the process of data collection, which results in lopsided, misleading results. This can occur in any of a number of ways, in the way the sample is selected, or in the way data are collected.^[85] It is a property of a statistical technique or of its results whereby the expected value of the results differs from the true underlying quantitative parameter being estimated.

Forecast bias

Main article: Forecast bias

A forecast bias is when there are consistent differences between results and the forecasts of those quantities; that is: forecasts may have an overall tendency to be too high or too low.

Observer-expectancy effect

Main article: Observer-expectancy effect

The observer-expectancy effect is when a researcher's expectations cause them to subconsciously influence the people participating in an experiment. It is usually controlled using a double-blind system, and was an important reason for the development of double-blind experiments.

Reporting bias and social desirability bias

Main articles: Reporting bias and Social desirability bias

In epidemiology and empirical research, reporting bias is defined as "selective revealing or suppression of information" of undesirable behavior by subjects^[86] or researchers.^[87][88] It refers to a tendency to under-report unexpected or undesirable experimental results, while being more trusting of expected or desirable results. This can propagate, as each instance reinforces the status quo, and later experimenters justify their own reporting bias by observing that previous experimenters reported different results.

Social desirability bias is a bias within social science research where survey respondents can tend to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed positively by others.^[89] It can take the form of over-reporting laudable behavior, or under-reporting undesirable behavior. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences. The inclination represents a major issue with self-report questionnaires; of special concern are self-reports of abilities, personalities, sexual behavior, and drug use.^[89]

Selection bias

Main article: Selection bias

Sampling is supposed to collect of a representative sample of a population.

Selection bias is the conscious or unconscious bias introduced into a study by the way individuals, groups or data are selected for analysis, if such a way means that true randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed.^[90] This results in a sample that may be significantly different from the overall population.

Prejudices

Main articles: Bigotry, Prejudice, and Cultural bias

Bias and prejudice are usually considered to be closely related.^[91] Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, political opinion, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, or other personal characteristics. Prejudice can also refer to unfounded beliefs^[92] and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence".^[93]

Ageism

Main article: Ageism

Ageism is the stereotyping and/or discrimination against individuals or groups on the basis of their age. It can be used in reference to prejudicial attitudes towards older people, or towards younger people.

Classism

Main article: Class discrimination

Classism is discrimination on the basis of social class. It includes attitudes that benefit the upper class at the expense of the lower class, or vice versa.^[94]

Lookism

Main article: Lookism

Lookism is stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination on the basis of physical attractiveness, or more generally to people whose appearance matches cultural preferences.^[95][96][97] Many people make automatic judgments of others based on their physical appearance that influence how they respond to those people.^[98][99]

Racism

Main article: Racism

Racism consists of ideologies based on a desire to dominate or a belief in the inferiority of another race.^[100][101] It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.^{[102][103][104]}

Sexism

This section is an excerpt from Sexism.[edit]

Suffragette organizations campaigned for women's right to vote.

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but primarily affects women and girls.^[105] It has been linked to gender roles and stereotypes,^[106][107] and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another.^[108] Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape, and other forms of sexual violence.^[109][110] Discrimination in this context is defined as discrimination toward people based on their gender identity^[111] or their gender or sex differences.^[112] An example of this is workplace inequality.^[112] Sexism refers to violation of equal opportunities (formal equality) based on gender or refers to violation of equality of outcomes based on gender, also called substantive equality.^[113] Sexism may arise from social or cultural customs and norms.^[114]

Contextual biases

Biases in academia

See also: Statistical bias

Academic bias

Main article: Academic bias

Academic bias is the bias or perceived bias of scholars allowing their beliefs to shape their research and the scientific community. Claims of bias are often linked to claims by conservatives of pervasive bias against political conservatives and religious Christians.^[115] Some have argued that these claims are based upon anecdotal evidence which would not reliably indicate systematic bias,^{[116][117][118]} and have suggested that this divide is due to self-selection of conservatives choosing not to pursue academic careers.^[116][119] There is some evidence that perception of classroom bias may be rooted in issues of sexuality, race, class and sex as much or more than in religion.^[120][121]

Experimenter bias

Main article: Experimenter's bias

In science research, experimenter bias occurs when experimenter expectancies regarding study results bias the research outcome.^[122] Examples of experimenter bias include conscious or unconscious influences on subject behavior including creation of demand characteristics that influence subjects, and altered or selective recording of experimental results themselves.^[123] It can also involve asking leading probes and not neutrally redirecting the subject back to the task when they ask for validation or questions.^[124]

Funding bias

Main article: Funding bias

Funding bias refers to the tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies.^[125] It can be caused by any or all of: a conscious or subconscious sense of obligation of researchers towards their employers,^[126] misconduct or malpractice,^[127] publication bias,^{[127][128][129][130]} or reporting bias.^[131]

Full text on net bias

Main article: FUTON bias

Full text on net (or FUTON) bias is a tendency of scholars to cite academic journals with open access—that is, journals that make their full text available on the internet without charge—in their own writing as compared with toll access publications. Scholars can more easily discover and access articles that have their full text on the internet, which increases authors' likelihood of reading, quoting, and citing these articles, this may increase the impact factor of open access journals relative to journals without open access.^{[132][133][134][135][136][137]}

The related bias, no abstract available bias (NAA bias) is scholars' tendency to cite journal articles that have an abstract available online more readily than articles that do not.^[132][137]

Publication bias

Main article: Publication bias

Publication bias is a type of bias with regard to what academic research is likely to be published because of a tendency among researchers and journal editors to prefer some outcomes rather than others (e.g., results showing a significant finding), which leads to a problematic bias in the published literature.^[138] This can propagate further as literature reviews of claims about support for a hypothesis will themselves be biased if the original literature is contaminated by publication bias.^[139] Studies with significant results often do not appear to be superior to studies with a null result with respect to quality of design.^[140] However, statistically significant results have been shown to be three times more likely to be published compared to papers with null results.^[141]

Biases in law enforcement

Driving while black

Main article: Driving while black

Driving while black refers to the racial profiling of African American drivers. The phrase implies that a motorist might be pulled over by a police officer, questioned, and searched, because of a racial bias.^[142][143]

Racial profiling

Main article: Racial profiling

Racial profiling, or ethnic profiling, is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race on the basis of racially observed characteristics or behavior, rather than on individual suspicion.^[144][145] Racial profiling is commonly referred to regarding its use by law enforcement, and its leading to discrimination against minorities.

Victim blaming

Main article: Victim blaming

Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a wrongful act is held at fault for the harm that befell them.^[146] The study of victimology seeks to mitigate the perception of victims as responsible.^[147]

Biases in media

Main articles: Media bias and Media manipulation

Media bias is the bias or perceived bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media in the selection of events, the stories that are reported, and how they are covered. The term generally implies a pervasive or widespread bias violating the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article.^[148] The level of media bias in different nations is debated. There are also watchdog groups that report on media bias.

Practical limitations to media neutrality include the inability of journalists to report all available stories and facts, the requirement that selected facts be linked into a coherent narrative, government influence including overt and covert censorship,^[149] the influence of the owners of the news source, concentration of media ownership, the selection of staff, the preferences of an intended audience, and pressure from advertisers.

Bias has been a feature of the mass media since its birth with the invention of the printing press. The expense of early printing equipment restricted media production to a limited number of people. Historians have found that publishers often served the interests of powerful social groups.^[150]

Agenda setting

Main article: Agenda-setting theory

Agenda setting describes the capacity of the media to focus on particular stories, if a news item is covered frequently and prominently, the audience will regard the issue as more important. That is, its salience will increase.^[151]

Gatekeeping

Main article: Gatekeeping (communication)

Gatekeeping is the way in which information and news are filtered to the public, by each person or corporation along the way. It is the "process of culling and crafting countless bits of information into the limited number of messages that reach people every day, and it is the center of the media's role in modern public life. [...] This process determines not only which information is selected, but also what the content and nature of the messages, such as news, will be."^[152]

Sensationalism

Main article: Sensationalism

Sensationalism is when events and topics in news stories and pieces are overhyped to present skewed impressions of events, which may cause a misrepresentation of the truth of a story.^[153] Sensationalism may involve reporting about insignificant matters and events, or the presentation of newsworthy topics in a trivial or tabloid manner contrary to the standards of professional journalism.^[154][155]

Other contexts

Educational bias

Main article: Bias in education

Bias in education refers to real or perceived bias in the educational system. The content of school textbooks is often the issue of debate, as their target audience is young people, and the term "whitewashing" is used to refer to selective removal of critical or damaging evidence or comment.^{[156][157][158]} Religious bias in textbooks is observed in countries where religion plays a dominant role. There can be many forms of educational bias. Some overlooked aspects, occurring especially with the pedagogical circles of public and private schools—sources that are unrelated to fiduciary or mercantile impoverishment which may be unduly magnified—include teacher bias as well as a general bias against women who are going into STEM research.^[159][160]

Inductive bias

Main article: Inductive bias

Inductive bias occurs within the field of machine learning. In machine learning one seeks to develop algorithms that are able to learn to anticipate a particular output. To accomplish this, the learning algorithm is given training cases that show the expected connection. Then the learner is tested with new examples. Without further assumptions, this problem cannot be solved exactly as unknown situations may not be predictable.^[161][162] The inductive bias of the learning algorithm is the set of assumptions that the learner uses to predict outputs given inputs that it has not encountered.^[161] It may bias the learner towards the correct solution, the incorrect, or be correct some of the time. A classical example of an inductive bias is Occam's Razor, which assumes that the simplest consistent hypothesis is the best.

Insider trading

Main article: Insider trading

Insider trading is the trading of a public company's stock or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) by individuals with access to non-public information about the company. In various countries, trading based on insider information is illegal because it is seen as unfair to other investors who do not have access to the information as the investor with insider information could potentially make far larger profits that a typical investor could make.

Match fixing

Main articles: Match fixing and Spot-fixing

In organized sports, match fixing occurs when a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law.^[163] There is a variety of reasons for this, but the most common is in exchange for a payoff from gamblers. Players might also intentionally perform poorly to get an advantage in the future (such as a better draft pick, or an easier opponent in a playoff), or to rig a handicap system. Match-fixing generally refers to fixing the final result of the game. Another form of match-fixing, known as spot-fixing, involves fixing small events within a match which can be gambled upon, but which are unlikely to prove decisive in determining the final result of the game.

Implicit bias

Main article: implicit stereotype

An implicit bias, or implicit stereotype, is the unconscious attribution of particular qualities to a member of a certain social group.^[164]

Implicit stereotypes are shaped by experience and based on learned associations between particular qualities and social categories, including race and/or gender. Individuals' perceptions and behaviors can be influenced by the implicit stereotypes they hold, even if they are unaware/unintentionally hold such stereotypes. Implicit bias is an aspect of implicit social cognition: the phenomenon that perceptions, attitudes, and stereotypes operate without conscious intention. For example, researchers may have implicit bias when designing survey questions and as a result, the questions do not produce accurate results or fail to encourage survey participation.^[124] The existence of implicit bias is supported by a variety of scientific articles in psychological literature. Implicit stereotype was first defined by psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald in 1995.

See also

• Psychology portal

• Algorithmic bias
• List of cognitive biases
• Detection theory
• Evidence
• Falsity
• Impartiality
• Metascience
• Opinion
• Personal equation
• Prejudice
• Proof (truth)
• Scholarly method
• Source criticism
• Wikipedia:
  • Racial bias on Wikipedia
  • Systemic bias in Wikipedia
  • Ideological bias on Wikipedia
  • Gender bias on Wikipedia

References

1. Steinbock, Bonnie (1978). "Speciesism and the Idea of Equality". Philosophy. 53 (204): 247–256. doi:10.1017/S0031819100016582. S2CID 170331649.
2. Welsh, Matthew; Begg, Steve (2016). "What have we learned? Insights from a decade of bias research". The APPEA Journal. 56 (1): 435. doi:10.1071/aj15032. ISSN 1326-4966.
3. "Online Etymology Dictionary, Bias". Archived from the original on 26 August 2018. Retrieved 26 Aug 2018.
4. Westcott, Sir Abell (1948). The Shipwright's Trade. University Press. ISBN 9781001385709.
5. "Definition of Cognitive Bias". Chegg. Archived from the original on 9 May 2016. Retrieved 1 September 2015.
6. Haselton, M. G.; Nettle, D. & Andrews, P. W. (2005). The evolution of cognitive bias. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp. 724–746.
7. Bless, H.; Fiedler, K. & Strack, F. (2004). Social cognition: How individuals construct social reality. Hove and New York: Psychology Press. p. 2.
8. Bless, H.; Fiedler, K. & Strack, F. (2004). Social cognition: How individuals construct social reality. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
9. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. (1972). "Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness". Cognitive Psychology. 3 (3): 430–454. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3.
10. Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and Deciding (4th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
12. For instance: Gigerenzer, G. & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). "Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality" (PDF). Psychological Review. 103 (4): 650–669. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.174.4404. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650. hdl:21.11116/0000-0000-B771-2. PMID 8888650. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-09-22.
13. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). "Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases". Science. 185 (4157): 1124–1131. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. PMID 17835457. S2CID 143452957. Archived from the original on September 24, 2017.
14. Haselton, M. G.; Nettle, D. & Andrews, P. W. (2005). The evolution of cognitive bias. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp. 724–746.
15. Bless, H.; Fiedler, K. & Strack, F. (2004). Social cognition: How individuals construct social reality. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
16. Welsh, Matthew B.; Delfabbro, Paul H.; Burns, Nicholas R.; Begg, Steve H. (2014). "Individual differences in anchoring: Traits and experience". Learning and Individual Differences. 29: 131–140. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.002. ISSN 1041-6080.
17. "Anchoring bias in decision-making". Science Daily. Archived from the original on September 29, 2015. Retrieved September 29, 2015.
18. "Anchoring Definition". Investopedia. Archived from the original on October 23, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2015.
19. Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. (1974). "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases" (PDF). Science. 185 (4157): 1124–1131. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. PMID 17835457. S2CID 143452957. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-08-17.
20. Edward Teach, "Avoiding Decision Traps Archived 2013-06-14 at the Wayback Machine", CFO (1 June 2004). Retrieved 29 May 2007.
21. Shermer, Michael (2008). "Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise". Scientific American. 299 (6): 48. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1208-48. PMID 19143444.
22. GrrlScientist (29 September 2010). "Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception". Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 26 September 2015. Retrieved 2011-06-29.
23. "Why Do We Need a Belief in God with Michael Shermer". YouTube. 2011-08-19. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14.
24. "Apophenia & Illusory Correlation « Paul Xavier Waterstone". Waterstone.wordpress.com. 2007-05-24. Archived from the original on 2014-12-17. Retrieved 2011-06-29.
25. Bustamante, Patricio; Yao, Fay; Bustamante, Daniela (2010). "The worship to the mountains: a study of the creation myths of the chinese culture". Archived from the original on 2015-09-24.
26. Bustamante, Patricio; Yao, Fay; Bustamante, Daniela (2010). "Search for meanings: from pleistocene art to the worship of the mountains in early China. Methodological tools for Mimesis". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04.
27. Heider, F. (1958). "The psychology of interpersonal relations", New York: Wiley, 322 p.
28. Kelley, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press
29. Abramson, L.Y.; Seligman, M.E.; Teasdale, J.D. (1978). "Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87 (1): 49–74. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49. PMID 649856. S2CID 2845204.
30. Funder, D.C. (1987). "Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 101 (1): 75–90. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.75. PMID 3562704. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-05-16.
31. Nisbett, R.E. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
32. "Rewind: Watch the Media Spend Two Years Hyping a Now-Debunked Story". Grabien. Archived from the original on 29 March 2019. Retrieved 29 March 2019.
33. Zweig, Jason (November 19, 2009). "How to Ignore the Yes-Man in Your Head". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on February 14, 2015. Retrieved 2010-06-13.
34. Plous, Scott (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. McGraw-Hill Education. pp. 233. ISBN 9780070504776.
35. Nickerson, Raymond S. (June 1998). "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises". Review of General Psychology. 2 (2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175. S2CID 8508954.
36. Tuchman, Barbara (1984). The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Knopf.
37. Druckman, J.N. (2001). "The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence". Political Behavior. 23 (3): 225–256. doi:10.1023/A:1015006907312. S2CID 10584001.
38. van der Pas, D. (2014). "Making Hay While the Sun Shines: Do Parties Only Respond to Media Attention When The Framing is Right?". Journal of Press/Politics. 19 (1): 42–65. doi:10.1177/1940161213508207. S2CID 220652512.
39. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Long-Crowell, Erin. "The Halo Effect: Definition, Advantages & Disadvantages". Psychology 104: Social Psychology. study.com. Archived from the original on October 1, 2015. Retrieved September 30, 2015.
41. "Halo Effect". Investopedia. Archived from the original on November 6, 2017. Retrieved September 30, 2015.
42. Thorndike, EL (1920). "A constant error in psychological ratings". Journal of Applied Psychology. 4 (1): 25–29. doi:10.1037/h0071663. Archived from the original on 2019-07-13. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
43. "Horns and halo effect". The Free Dictionary. Retrieved September 30, 2015.
44. Nisbett, Richard E; Wilson, Timothy D (1977). "The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35 (4): 250–56. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250. hdl:2027.42/92158. ISSN 1939-1315. S2CID 17867385. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09.
45. Glennie, Jonathan (3 May 2011). "Hugo Chávez's reverse-halo effect". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 August 2017.
46. Ostrove, Nancy; Sigall, Harold (1975). "Beautiful but Dangerous: Effects of Offender Attractiveness and Nature of the Crime on Juridic Judgment". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31 (3): 410–14. doi:10.1037/h0076472. Archived from the original on 2016-07-01.
47. Wade, T Joel; DiMaria, Cristina (2003). "Weight Halo Effects: Individual Differences in Perceived Life Success as a Function of Women's Race and Weight". Sex Roles. 48 (9/10): 461–465. doi:10.1023/A:1023582629538. S2CID 141143275.
48. "Apple shares surfs on big profits". BBC News. 13 January 2005. Archived from the original on 18 November 2006. Retrieved 18 January 2012.
49. Chandon, Pierre; Wansink, Brian (2007). "The Biasing Health Halos of Fast-Food Restaurant Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimate and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions". Journal of Consumer Research. 34 (3): 301–14. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.173.2288. doi:10.1086/519499. S2CID 3881018.
50. Jeffray, Nathan (24 June 2010). "Interview: Gerald Steinberg". The Jewish Chronicle. Archived from the original on 1 July 2010.
51. Balanson, Naftali (8 October 2008). "The 'halo effect' shields NGOs from media scrutiny". The Jerusalem Post.
52. Jones, Nancy. "Corporate Donors". Ronald House Durham. Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 26 November 2013.
53. Coombs, Timothy W; Holladay, Sherry J (2006). "Unpacking the halo effect: reputation and crisis management". Journal of Communication Management. 10 (2): 123–37. doi:10.1108/13632540610664698.
54. Klein, Jill; Dawar, Niraj (2004). "Evaluations in a Product-Harm Crisis". International Journal of Research in Marketing. 21 (3): 203–17. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.003.
55. "Mental Model: Horns Effect and Halo Effect". www.joshuakennon.com. 12 November 2011. Archived from the original on 2018-06-25. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
56. "The Halo and Horns Effects [Rating Errors]". Right Attitudes. 2010-05-01. Archived from the original on 2017-08-23. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
57. Myers, D.G. (2015). Exploring Social Psychology, 7th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill Education.
58. Campbell, W.K.; Sedikides, C. (1999). "Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration". Review of General Psychology. 3: 23–43. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.23. S2CID 144756539.
59. Pal, G.C. (2007). "Is there a universal self-serving attribution bias?". Psychological Studies. 52 (1): 85–89.
60. Campbell, W. Keith; Sedikides, Constantine; Reeder, Glenn D.; Elliot, Andrew J. (2000). "Among friends? An examination of friendship and the self-serving bias". British Journal of Social Psychology. 39 (2): 229–239. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.559.7984. doi:10.1348/014466600164444. PMID 10907097.
61. De Michele, P.; Gansneder, B.; Solomon, G. (1998). "Success and failure attributions of wrestlers: Further Evidence of the Self-Serving Bias". Journal of Sport Behavior. 21 (3): 242.
62. Moon, Youngme (2003). "Don't Blame the Computer: When Self-Disclosure Moderates the Self-Serving Bias". Journal of Consumer Psychology. 13 (1): 125–137. doi:10.1207/153276603768344843.
63. Samuelson, William; Zeckhauser, Richard (1988). "Status quo bias in decision making". Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1 (1): 7–59. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.632.3193. doi:10.1007/bf00055564. ISSN 0895-5646. S2CID 5641133.
64. Lo, Bernard; Field, Marilyn J. (2009). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-13188-9.
65. Cain, D.M.; Detsky, A.S. (2008). "Everyone's a Little Bit Biased (Even Physicians)". JAMA. 299 (24): 2893–289. doi:10.1001/jama.299.24.2893. PMID 18577735.
66. "What is BRIBERY?". Black's Law Dictionary. 2011-11-04. Archived from the original on October 1, 2015. Retrieved September 30, 2015.
67. See generally T. Markus Funk, "Don't Pay for the Misdeeds of Others: Intro to Avoiding Third-Party FCPA Liability," 6 BNA White Collar Crime Report 33 (January 14, 2011) Archived March 16, 2014, at the Wayback Machine (discussing bribery in the context of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).
68. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. (2010). Social psychology. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
69. Taylor, Donald M.; Doria, Janet R. (April 1981). "Self-serving and group-serving bias in attribution". Journal of Social Psychology. 113 (2): 201–211. doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9924371. ISSN 0022-4545.
70. "Cronyism". The Free Dictionary. Retrieved October 1, 2015.
71. "Nepotism". The Free Dictionary. Retrieved September 24, 2015.
72. "Nepotism." Archived 2016-01-25 at the Wayback Machine Dictionary.com. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
73. "In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History". Adam Bellow Booknotes interview transcript. Archived from the original on 26 September 2010. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
74. "Article Nepotism". New Catholic Dictionary. Archived from the original on February 24, 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-12.
75. "lobbying". Merriam-Webster Dictionary.Com. Archived from the original on 2015-09-17.
76. "lobbying". BBC News. London. 1 October 2008. Archived from the original on 3 January 2009. Retrieved 24 March 2010.
77. "lobbyist". Random House Unabridged Dictionary. 2006. Archived from the original on 2015-10-02.
78. "Self-regulation dictionary definition". YourDictionary. Archived from the original on October 5, 2015. Retrieved October 2, 2015.
79. "Regulatory Capture Definition". Investopedia. Archived from the original on October 3, 2015. Retrieved October 2, 2015.
80. "Regulatory Capture 101". The Wall Street Journal. 2014-10-06. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on 2017-09-03. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
81. Timothy B. Lee, "Entangling the Web" Archived 2011-05-11 at the Wayback Machine The New York Times (August 3, 2006). Retrieved April 1, 2011
82. Gary Adams, Sharon Hayes, Stuart Weierter and John Boyd, "Regulatory Capture: Managing the Risk" Archived 2011-07-20 at the Wayback Machine ICE Australia, International Conferences and Events (PDF) (October 24, 2007). Retrieved April 14, 2011
83. Hamilton, Alexander. "Small is beautiful, at least in high-income democracies: the distribution of policy-making responsibility, electoral accountability, and incentives for rent extraction" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-10-05. Retrieved 2013-05-24., World Bank.
84. FTC v. Greeting Cards of America, Inc. et al - USA (S.D. Fla. 2004), Text.
85. Rumsey, Deborah J. "HOW TO IDENTIFY STATISTICAL BIAS". Dummies.com. Archived from the original on 2018-02-14. Retrieved 2018-08-24.
86. Porta, Miquel, ed. (5 June 2008). A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press. p. 275. ISBN 978-0-19-157844-1. Archived from the original on 16 December 2016. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
87. Green S, Higgins S, editors: Glossary. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. Archived 2010-03-09 at the Wayback Machine
88. McGauran, N; Wieseler, B; Kreis, J; Schüler, YB; Kölsch, H; Kaiser, T (2010). "Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review" (PDF). Trials. 11: 37. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-37. PMC 2867979. PMID 20388211. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-01-08.
89. "Social Desirability Bias". psychologyconcepts.com. 13 November 2011. Archived from the original on August 31, 2015. Retrieved September 1, 2015.
90. Dictionary of Cancer Terms → selection bias Archived 2014-07-05 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved on September 23, 2009.
91. "bias ...; prejudice", The New Merriam–Webster Dictionary, ISBN 0877799008
92. William James wrote: "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." Quotable Quotes – Courtesy of The Freeman Institute Archived 2023-02-21 at the Wayback Machine
93. Rosnow, Ralph L. (March 1972). "Poultry and Prejudice". Psychologist Today. 5 (10): 53–6.
94. Kadi, Joanna (1996). Thinking Class. U.S.: South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-548-0.
95. "Lookism". The Free Dictionary. Retrieved September 30, 2015.
96. "Lookism". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. Bartleby.com. 2000. Archived from the original on December 5, 2008.
97. Farrell, Warren (2005). Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth About the Pay Gap -- And What Women Can Do About It. AMACOM, ISBN 0814472109 p. 193
98. Eagly, Alice; Ashmore, Richard; Makhijani, Mona G.; Longo, Laura C. (1991). "What is beautiful is good, but". Psychological Bulletin. 110: 109–128. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109.
99. Rhodes, Gillian; Simmons, Leigh; Peters, Marianne (2005). "Attractiveness and Sexual Behavior: Does Attractiveness Enhance Mating Success?". Evolution and Human Behavior. 26 (2): 186–201. Bibcode:2005EHumB..26..186R. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.014.
100. "Oxford English Dictionary, Racism". Archived from the original on 2015-08-29. Retrieved 24 Aug 2015. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior:
101. SCHMID, W. THOMAS (April 1996). "The Definition of Racism". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 13 (1): 31–40. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.1996.tb00147.x.
102. Racism Archived 2012-09-11 at the Wayback Machine Oxford Dictionaries
103. "Racism" in R. Schefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society. SAGE. p. 1113
104. Newman, D. M. (2012). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4129-8729-5. racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
105. Sources:

     • Stevenson, Angus; Lindberg, Christine A., eds. (2011). New Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-989153-5. Defines sexism as "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex".^{[page needed]}
     • Cudd, Ann E.; Jones, Leslie E. (2008). "Sexism". In Frey, R. G.; Wellman, Christopher Heath (eds.). A Companion to Applied Ethics. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-4051-7190-8. [I]n the more accurate and more specific sense [...] 'sexism' refers to a historically and globally pervasive form of oppression against women.
     • Masequesmay, Gina (2008). "Sexism". In O'Brien, Jodi (ed.). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 2. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 748–751. ISBN 978-1-4522-6602-2. Sexism usually refers to prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender, especially against women and girls. [...] Sexism is an ideology or practices that maintain patriarchy or male domination. Also see:
       Masequesmay, Gina (5 Jan 2024). "Sexism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 19 Feb 2024.
     • Hornsby, Jennifer (2005). "Sexism". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-103747-4. Defines sexism as "thought or practice which may permeate language and which assumes women's inferiority to men".^{[page needed]}
     • Jary, David; Jary, Julia, eds. (2005). Collins Dictionary of Sociology (4th ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers. p. 551. ISBN 978-0-00-718399-9. Defines sexism as discrimination against either men or women on the grounds of sex, and also "any devaluation or denigration of women or men, but particularly women, which is embodied in institutions and social relationships".
     • Scruton, Roger (2007). The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought (3rd ed.). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hants.: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 631. ISBN 978-0-230-62509-9. Either sex may be the object of sexist attitudes [...] however, it is commonly held that, in developed societies, women have been the usual victims.
     • Sears, James T., ed. (2007). "Sexism". The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Love, Courtship, and Sexuality through History, Volume 6: The Modern World. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-3133-3646-1. Sexism is any act, attitude, or institutional configuration that systematically subordinates or devalues women. Built upon the belief that men and women are constitutionally different, sexism takes these differences as indications that men are inherently superior to women, which then is used to justify the nearly universal dominance of men in social and familial relationships, as well as politics, religion, language, law, and economics.^{[page needed]}
     • Foster, Carly Hayden (2011). "Sexism". In Kurian, George Thomas (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. ISBN 978-1-9331-1644-0. [B]oth men and women can experience sexism, but sexism against women is more pervasive [...]^{[page needed]}
     • Johnson, Allan G. (2000). The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology: A User's Guide to Sociological Language (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 978-0-631-21681-0. [T]he key test of whether something is sexist [...] lies in its consequences: if it supports male privilege, then it is by definition sexist. I specify 'male privilege' because in every known society where gender inequality exists, males are privileged over females.^{[page needed]}
     • Lorber, Judith (2010). Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-1953-7522-0. Although we speak of gender inequality, it is usually women who are disadvantaged relative to similarly situated men. [Emphasis in original.]
     • Wortman, Camille B.; Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Weaver, Charles A. (1999). Psychology (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. p. 601. ISBN 978-0-0707-1931-6. Sexism, or prejudice toward one sex (almost always women), has existed throughout recorded history.
106. Matsumoto, David (2001). The Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Oxford University Press. p. 197. ISBN 978-0-19-513181-9.
107. Nakdimen, K. A. (1984). "The Physiognomic Basis of Sexual Stereotyping". American Journal of Psychiatry. 141 (4): 499–503. doi:10.1176/ajp.141.4.499. PMID 6703126.
108. Schaefer, Richard T. (2011). "Women: The Oppressed Majority". Sociology in Modules. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 315. ISBN 978-0-07-802677-5.
109. Forcible Rape Institutionalized Sexism in the Criminal Justice System| Gerald D. Robin Division of Criminal Justice, University of New Haven
110. Masequesmay, Gina (5 Jan 2024). "Sexism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 19 Feb 2024.
111. Macklem, Tony (2003). Beyond Comparison: Sex and Discrimination. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-82682-2.^{[page needed]}
112. Sharyn Ann Lenhart (2004). Clinical Aspects of Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination: Psychological Consequences and Treatment Interventions. Routledge. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-135-94131-4. Retrieved April 20, 2018. Gender or Sex Discrimination: This term refers to the types of gender bias that have a negative impact. The term has legal, as well as theoretical and psychological, definitions. Psychological consequences can be more readily inferred from the latter, but both definitions are of significance. Theoretically, gender discrimination has been described as (1) the unequal rewards that men and women receive in the workplace or academic environment because of their gender or sex difference (DiThomaso, 1989); (2) a process occurring in work or educational settings in which an individual is overtly or covertly limited access to an opportunity or a resource because of a sex or is given the opportunity or the resource reluctantly and may face harassment for picking it (Roeske & Pleck, 1983); or (3) both.^{[page needed]}
113. De Vos, M. (2020). The European Court of Justice and the march towards substantive equality in European Union anti-discrimination law. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 20(1), 62-87.
114. Macfarlane, Christina; Coppack, Sean; Masters, James (September 12, 2019). "FIFA must act after death of Iran's 'Blue Girl,' says activist". CNN. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
115. Hibbing, John D (2014), "Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37 (3): 297–350, doi:10.1017/S0140525X13001192, hdl:1911/77132, ISSN 1939-1323, PMID 24970428, S2CID 54466287, archived from the original on 2019-12-21, retrieved 2019-09-02
116. Ames, Barry; Barker, David C; Bonneau, Chris W; Carman, Christopher J (2005), "Hide the Republicans, the Christians, and the Women: A Response to "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty"", The Forum, 3 (2), doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1075, ISSN 1540-8884, S2CID 14322810
117. Lee, John (November 2006), The "Faculty Bias" Studies: Science or Propaganda (PDF), American Federation of Teachers, archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-17, retrieved 2014-01-24
118. Giroux, Henry A. (2006), "Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy", College Literature, 33 (4): 1–42, doi:10.1353/lit.2006.0051, ISSN 1542-4286, S2CID 143909432
119. Gross, Neil (9 April 2013), Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care?, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-07448-4, archived from the original on 27 June 2014, retrieved 2014-01-24
120. Boysen, Guy A; Vogel, David L; Cope, Marissa A; Hubbard, Asale (2009), "Incidents Of Bias in College Classrooms: Instructor and Student Perceptions", Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2 (4): 219–231, doi:10.1037/a0017538, ISSN 1938-8934, S2CID 11334709
121. Brady, K. L.; Eisler, R. M. (1995). "Gender Bias in the College Classroom: A Critical Review of the Literature and Implications for Future Research". Journal of Research and Development in Education. 29 (1): 9–19.
122. Sackett, D. L. (1979). "Bias in analytic research". Journal of Chronic Diseases. 32 (1–2): 51–63. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(79)90012-2. PMID 447779.
123. Barry H. Kantowitz; Henry L. Roediger, III; David G. Elmes (2009). Experimental Psychology. Cengage Learning. p. 371. ISBN 978-0-495-59533-5. Archived from the original on 1 January 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
124. Geisen, Emily; Sha, Mandy; Roper, Farren (2024). Bias testing in market research: A framework to enable inclusive research design (published January 3, 2024). ISBN 979-8862902785.
125. Krimsky, Sheldon (2012). "Do Financial Conflicts of Interest Bias Research? An Inquiry into the "Funding Effect" Hypothesis" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 38 (4): 566–587. doi:10.1177/0162243912456271. S2CID 42598982. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-17. Retrieved 2015-09-23.
126. Cialdini, Robert B (2008-08-08). Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed). Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-205-60999-4.
127. David Michaels (2008-07-15). "It's Not the Answers That Are Biased, It's the Questions". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-10-09.
128. Wilmshurst, Peter (2007). "Dishonesty in Medical Research" (PDF). The Medico-Legal Journal. 75 (Pt 1): 3–12. doi:10.1258/rsmmlj.75.1.3. PMID 17506338. S2CID 26915448. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-05-21.
129. Lexchin, Joel; Bero, Lisa A; Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Clark, Otavio (2003-05-31). "Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review". BMJ. 326 (7400): 1167–1170. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167. PMC 156458. PMID 12775614.
130. Anders Sandberg (2007-01-14). "Supping with the Devil". OvercomingBias. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23.
131. "Types of Bias". Cochrane Bias Methods Group. 2009-06-19. Archived from the original on 2010-07-23. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
132. Murali, N. S.; Murali, H. R.; Auethavekiat, P.; Erwin, P. J.; Mandrekar, J. N.; Manek, N. J.; Ghosh, A. K. (2004). "Impact of FUTON and NAA bias on visibility of research". Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 79 (8): 1001–1006. doi:10.4065/79.8.1001. PMID 15301326.
133. Ghosh, A. K.; Murali, N. S. (2003). "Online access to nephrology journals: The FUTON bias". Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation. 18 (9): 1943, author reply 1943. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfg247. PMID 12937253.
134. Mueller, P. S.; Murali, N. S.; Cha, S. S.; Erwin, P. J.; Ghosh, A. K. (2006). "The effect of online status on the impact factors of general internal medicine journals". The Netherlands Journal of Medicine. 64 (2): 39–44. PMID 16517987. Archived from the original on 2011-07-19.
135. Krieger, M. M.; Richter, R. R.; Austin, T. M. (2008). "An exploratory analysis of PubMed's free full-text limit on citation retrieval for clinical questions". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 96 (4): 351–355. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.010. PMC 2568849. PMID 18974812.
136. Gilman, Isaac (2009). "Opening up the Evidence: Evidence-Based Practice and Open Access". Faculty Scholarship (PUL). Archived from the original on 2011-02-21. Retrieved 2015-09-02.
137. Wentz, R. (2002). "Visibility of research: FUTON bias". The Lancet. 360 (9341): 1256. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11264-5. PMID 12401287. S2CID 5084231.
138. Song, F.; Parekh, S.; Hooper, L.; Loke, Y. K.; Ryder, J.; Sutton, A. J.; Hing, C.; Kwok, C. S.; Pang, C.; Harvey, I. (2010). "Dissemination and publication of research findings: An updated review of related biases". Health Technology Assessment. 14 (8): iii, iix–xi, iix–193. doi:10.3310/hta14080. PMID 20181324.
139. H. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton and M. Borenstein. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments. Wiley. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ.
140. Easterbrook, P. J.; Berlin, J. A.; Gopalan, R.; Matthews, D. R. (1991). "Publication bias in clinical research". Lancet. 337 (8746): 867–872. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y. PMID 1672966. S2CID 36570135.
141. Dickersin, K.; Chan, S.; Chalmers, T. C.; et al. (1987). "Publication bias and clinical trials". Controlled Clinical Trials. 8 (4): 343–353. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(87)90155-3. PMID 3442991.
142. Harris, D. (1999). "The stories, the statistics, and the law: Why 'Driving While Black' matters". 84 Minnesota Law Review. pp. 265–326. Archived from the original on May 15, 2007. Retrieved May 7, 2007.
143. Gates, Henry L. (1995-10-16). "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Black Man". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2017-03-14.
144. "Profiling". Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. 9 August 2023.
145. Warren, Patricia Y.; Farrell, Amy (2009). "The Environmental Context of Racial Profiling". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 623: 52–63. doi:10.1177/0002716208330485. JSTOR 40375886. S2CID 146368789.
146. "Victim Blaming" (PDF). Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-03-25. Retrieved 2018-08-31.
147. Fox, K. A.; Cook, C. L. (2011). "Is Knowledge Power? The Effects of a Victimology Course on Victim Blaming". Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 26 (17): 3407–3427. doi:10.1177/0886260511403752. PMID 21602202. S2CID 25378556.
148. Strategic Maneuvering and Media Bias in Political News Magazine Opinion Articles, Stefano Mario Rivolta, 7 June 2011
149. "10 Most Censored Countries" Archived 2015-10-16 at the Wayback Machine, Committee to Protect Journalists, 2 May 2006
150. Ann Heinrichs, The Printing Press (Inventions That Shaped the World), p. 53, Franklin Watts, 2005, ISBN 0-531-16722-4, ISBN 978-0-531-16722-9
151. McCombs, M; Reynolds, A (2002). "News influence on our pictures of the world". Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research.
152. Shoemaker, Pamela J.; Vos, Tim P. (2009). Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415981392.
153. "Issue Area: Sensationalism." Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. Accessed June 2011.
154. Stephens, Mitchell (2007). A History of News. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518991-9.
155. Thompson, John (June 22, 1999). "The Media and Modernity". In Mackay, Hugh; O'Sullivan, Tim (eds.). The Media Reader: Continuity and Transformation. Sage Publications Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7619-6250-2.
156. Sadker, David. "Seven Forms of Bias in Instructional Materials". sadker.org. Archived from the original on 21 October 2015. Retrieved 3 September 2015.
157. Strauss, Valerie (12 September 2014). "Proposed Texas textbooks are inaccurate, biased and politicized, new report finds". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 8 September 2015. Retrieved 3 September 2015.
158. Czitrom, Daniel (22 March 2010). "Texas school board whitewashes history". CNN. Archived from the original on 28 March 2015. Retrieved 3 September 2015.
159. "How to Get Your Ex Boyfriend Back – Tips to Win Back His Love and Get Him Back". www.americanmentalhealthfundation.org. Archived from the original on 2018-06-28. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
160. "Crisis Counseling with Children," Van Ornum and Murdock, 1990, NY: Crossroad/Continuum.
161. Mitchell, T. M. (1980). The need for biases in learning generalizations (Report). CBM-TR 5-110. New Brunswick, New Jersey, US: Rutgers University. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.19.5466.
162. DesJardins, M.; Gordon, D. F. (1995). "Evaluation and selection of biases in machine learning". Machine Learning Journal. 5: 1–17. Archived from the original on 2009-01-16.
163. match-fixing. Oxford dictionaries. Archived from the original on August 31, 2015. Retrieved September 23, 2015.
164. Greenwald, A. G.; Banaji, M. R. (1995). "Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes". Psychological Review. 102 (1): 4–27. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.411.2919. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4. PMID 7878162. S2CID 8194189.

External links