MAJOR PROJECT REPORT

ON

IMPACT OF COGNITIVE BIASES ON DECISION MAKING AND

ATTENTION

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF B.A. (H)

PSYCOLOGY PROGRAMME OF SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT & LIBERAL
STUDIES, NCU, GURUGRAM

ACADEMIC SESSION
JAN- JUNE 2024

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

DR. NEHA JAIN
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT & LIBERAL STUDIES
NCU, GURUGRAM

SUBMITTED BY:
SWATI NAHARWAL
ROLL NO: 21BAP028

THE NORTHCAPUNIVERSITY
SEC-23A, GURUGRAM – 122017, HARYANA, INDIA

1
 DECLARATION FROM STUDENT

I hereby declare that the project work entitled “Impact of Cognitive biases on decision-making and attention”

submitted to The NorthCap University, Gurugram is a record of an original work done by Swati

Naharwal(21bap028) under the guidance of Dr.Neha Jain,, Head of Department of Psychology. This project work is

submitted in partial fulfillment of my bachelor's degree for the session 2021-24. The results embodied in this thesis

have not been submitted to any other university or institute for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma.

Swati Naharwal

21bap028

2
 CERTIFICATE FROM GUIDE

This is to certify that the Project Work titled “Impact of cognitive biases on decision making and attention”

is a bonafide work carried out by Swati Naharwal, Enrolment No. 21bap028 student of BA Psychology Hons, of

Department of Psychology, The NorthCap University, Gurugram.

Signature of Guide :

Name, Designation :

Date :

Place :

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to offer my heartfelt appreciation and vote of thanks to my research supervisor, Dr. Neha Jain, whose

invaluable advice has been instrumental in helping me to successfully complete this project and ensure its success.

This project would not have been completed without her recommendations and guidance.

In addition, I want to express my gratitude to my family and friends for their invaluable advice and

recommendations, which have been useful to me during the project's many stages of completion.

I am thankful that I had the opportunity to get ongoing support, encouragement, and direction from every member

of the faculty at The Northcap University in Gurugram, which enabled me to successfully finish my project work.

Swati Naharwal

21BAP028

4
5
 ABSTRACT

Decision-making and attention allocation are significantly impacted by cognitive biases, which are innate to human

cognition. These biases, which range from availability bias to confirmation bias, have a substantial impact on how

people interpret, digest, and use information. It's important to comprehend the effects of these biases since they can

cause systematic departures from logical decision-making and have an impact on a range of life decisions, from

making financial decisions to receiving medical diagnoses. Even with a wealth of study in this field, more has to be

done to understand the complex interactions that occur between cognitive biases, attention, and decision-making in

many settings and populations. By examining how cognitive biases affect decision-making and attention processes

while taking individual variances, contextual circumstances, and developmental phases into account, this research

aims to close this gap.

In summary, the study highlights the significance of taking cognitive biases into account while making decisions

and paying attention, and it also identifies areas that should be further investigated to improve the efficiency of

decision-making.

6
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PARTICULARS PAGE NO

1. 1.Introduction 8
1.1 Cognitive bias
1.2 Attention

2. 2. Review of literature 13
2.1 Research gaps

3. 3.1 Research Methodology 23

3.1.1 Research Objectives
3.1.2 Research Hypotheses
3.1.3 Research Design
3.2 Type of Research
3.2.1 Data Collection Methods
3.2.3 Data Collection
Techniques/Instruments

4. 4.1 Sampling Design 27

4.1.1 Sample Design
4.1.2 Sample Unit
4.1.3 Sample location
4.1.4 Sampling Method
4.1.5 Sampling size

5. 5.1 Result Table 29

5.2 Data Interpretation and
Analysis

6. Discussions 32
6.1 Discussion findings

7. Conclusion 34

8. References 35

7
 9. Appendices 38

1. INTRODUCTION

While making complex judgements or decisions people often use simple rules of thumb called “heuristics”

which protect us from a state of information overload, these are information processing strategies which can result

in predictable errors known as “cognitive biases”. There are several types of cognitive biases that we use in our

daily lives that impact our decision-making and attention even when we are not aware of it as they influence what

information we pay attention to and how we make decisions using past experiences etc. Biases are unconscious and

automatic cognitive processes which help in efficient and quicker decision making. Cognitive biases are often the

result of simplifying information processing by our brain often arising from problems related to thinking, attention,

memory etc. Our attention serves as a filter, sifting through the tremendous number of stimuli that overtake us.

However, biases have the potential to affect the filtering process. For example, the availability bias (Tversky &

Kahneman, 1974) causes us to pay greater attention to situations that appear more likely, even if statistically

improbable.

1.1 WHAT IS A COGNITIVE BIAS?

Cognitive bias refers to a pattern of systemic errors in thinking that impact our ability to comprehend

information, understand others, and make decisions. It frequently stems from our recollections, perceptions, or

personal and cultural views and might result in unreasonable thoughts or conclusions. A cognitive bias is an

unconscious mistake in reasoning that causes you to misunderstand information from your environment and

compromises the accuracy and rationality of your conclusions.

Cognitive biases can be helpful because they don’t require much thought and can help you make decisions

fast. But just like conscious biases, unconscious biases can also show up as harmful prejudice that hurts a person or

a group. There are more than 100 cognitive, decision-making, and memory biases that have been written about.

Some most common, well-known and important biases are discussed below:

8
  Availability Heuristic: The availability heuristic happens when we assess the likelihood of an event

based on our capacity to recall similar experiences. If we can recall specific occurrences of an event, we believe it

to be more prevalent than it is(Tversky and Kahneman,1974). If you can easily recall multiple instances of

something happening, you are tricked into believing it must occur frequently. The availability heuristic might affect

our view of reality. This can result in poor decision-making (particularly when estimating risks) and a variety of

research biases, including recall bias. There can be number of reasons why information is readily available to us:

media, recency, the relative unavailability of information etc. The availability heuristic assumes that information

that is easier to recall corresponds to more frequent or probable situations. Information that is more difficult to

recall, on the other hand, is thought to be less common or less likely to occur. As a result, the availability heuristic

shapes our perceptions of reality.

 Anchoring heuristic: Anchoring bias refers to people’s tendency to depend excessively on the first

piece of information they hear about something. Regardless of how accurate the information is, people tilize it as a

reference point, or anchor, when making subsequent adjustments to it. As a result, anchoring bias may result in

incorrect decisions in a variety of situations, including salary negotiations, medical diagnosis, and purchases.

 Overconfidence Bias: This occurs when you have too much confidence in your own expertise and

beliefs. You might also think that your contribution to a choice is worth more than it is. You might pair this bias

with anchoring, which means acting on hunches because you have an unrealistic perception of your own decision-

making abilities (Lichtenstein & Fischhoff, 1977).Researchers discovered that entrepreneurs are more prone to

exhibit overconfidence bias than the overall population. They may fail to recognize the limits of their expertise, so

they perceive less risk. Some entrepreneurs prosper, while others fail.

 Halo Effect: This is how people tend to see a person’s good qualities “spill over” from one part of

their nature to another. To put it another way, it’s hard to think that someone you trust or like could be wrong now.

But you might also see the opposite, which is called the “Horn Effect”. As you might have guessed, this is when

the bad things about someone make it hard for you to judge them or their skills.

9
  Gambler’s Fallacy: You think that things that happened in the past will affect what will happen in

the future. This is called the gambler’s fallacy. There are instances where you really believe that things will be

different the next time. But the truth is that the results are very ambiguous. The amount of successes you’ve had in

the past doesn’t really matter for the future.

 Hindsight bias. When someone claims to have known something since the beginning after it has

been shown to be right. For example, after witnessing a basketball game, you claim that you had predicted who

will win beforehand time.

 False consensus effect: When the “false consensus effect” occurs, you typically underestimate the

number of people who agree with you, or you may believe that your behavior or opinions are prevalent. How could

this cognitive bias manifest in real life? You may be concerned about universal healthcare and believe that

everyone shares your opinions. Then you’re startled when others express the opposite opinion.

 Self- serving bias: If something great happens to you, for example, if you and your teammates win a

soccer match, it’s because you trained hard and took responsibility for the good result. However, if you lose a

game, you tend to blame other influences, such as the referee missing a vital call.

 Loss Aversion: This bias refers to people’s preference for avoiding losses over earning equivalent

rewards. It can cause risk aversion and hesitancy to make decisions with possible losses, even if the expected return

suggests that it is the appropriate choice.

 Framing effect: The Framing Effect occurs when a presentation of information modifies how people

perceive and make decisions about it. The same information provided in different ways may result in different

conclusions and decisions.

These are some of the most common and universal cognitive biases that impact our decision-making and

attention in different situations. There is an interplay between cognitive biases and decision-making styles which

10
can help people recognize the impact of biases on their decision making processes leading to more effective

choices in different situations.

1.2 ATTENTION

The cognitive function of attention allows people to focus on certain stimuli and ignore extraneous

information. It's vital to perception, decision-making, and cognition. Attention is influenced by many variables,

including cognitive biases. Cognitive biases are systematic deviations from rationality or logical judgement,

frequently caused by mental shortcuts or heuristics used to simplify complex information processing. These biases

can greatly affect attentional processes and how people perceive and interpret stimuli.

For instance, attentional biases develop when people focus on particular information over others. Anxiety

disorders sometimes include selective attention to hazardous or emotionally arousing events. Cognitive biases also

alter attentional resource allocation, changing how people focus on different tasks or stimuli. Confirmation bias,

where people focus on evidence that supports their opinions, can lead to ignoring contradictory data.

Understanding attention and cognitive biases is essential to understanding human information processing and

decision-making. Researchers can understand cognitive phenomena from ordinary perception to clinical diseases

by understanding how biases affect attentional processes.

The confirmation bias phenomena is one way cognitive biases affect attention. People who have a tendency

to ignore information that contradicts their preexisting views or expectations in favour of information that supports

them are said to exhibit confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). Confirmation bias can essentially filter out

contradicting information by making people selectively focus on cues that support their preconceived views.

Individuals may be misled in their perceptions and decision-making processes if they fail to consider opposing

viewpoints or relevant data due to this biassed attention.

Another cognitive bias that might affect attention is the availability heuristic, which leads people to overvalue

information that is easily retrieved from memory (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). People tend to focus more on

information that is easier to recall, like recent or vivid experiences, when evaluating the importance or possibility

11
of events. People may overemphasize important but possibly irrelevant information while ignoring less obvious but

important information, which might skew their assessments of risk or likelihood.

Furthermore, according to Tversky and Kahneman (1981), framing bias can affect how people interpret and react

to information based on how it is presented. People may give distinct components of the same information

differing amounts of attention based on whether the information is presented in a positive or negative light.

Because people may focus more on particular traits or attributes depending on the framing, this biassed attention

may lead to potentially biassed perceptions and judgements, which can affect people's assessments and decisions.

12
 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE –

This study of the literature looks at the trend of people starting new businesses even though they are aware

there are a lot of risks. It brings up earlier research that showed entrepreneurs like to take measured risks. A group

of 191 business administration students were used in the study to investigate how cognitive biases affect how

people perceive risk. The results show that cognitive biases may cause some people to underestimate the risks of

starting a business, which may influence their decision to do so. The study shows that cognitive biases, how people

think about risk, and making business decisions all interact in a complicated way. This has implications for

understanding why some businesses succeed and others fail. (Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000))

This paper studies at how cognitive biases (CB) affect choices in business, health, the law, and finance. A

common bias in these areas is found to be overconfidence. Different types of research support CB's impact, but two

problems stand out: the lack of ecological validity in vignette studies and the failure to take into account how

different people's biases affect them. The results show that overconfidence and the idea of a risky choice affect the

decisions that CEOs make in management. Overconfidence and fear of losing money can affect the choices that

individual buyers make in the financial world. Diagnostic mistakes in medicine are caused by overconfidence,

anchoring, and availability bias. Anchoring, hindsight bias, and confirmation bias can affect how judges make

decisions. (Berthet, V. (2022).)

The point of this study is to look into how cognitive biases affect managers' choices when putting in place

performance management systems (PMS) and come up with ways to deal with these biases. It finds that cognitive

biases play a big role, especially in the early stages of PMS, based on semi-structured interviews with 104 workers.

There is a link between these beliefs and emotions like fear or happiness. The study suggests more real-world

research to look into links between managers' traits and biases, while also recognizing that this research might not

13
be completely objective and that foreign samples are needed for a more complete picture (Hristov, I., Camilli, R.,

& Mechelli, A. (2022)).

This research looks into how cognitive flaws and personality traits can affect how well doctors can

diagnose and treat patients, which could lead to bad management and wasteful use of resources. Through a

thorough analysis, it finds common biases among health professionals, such as overconfidence and anchoring, that

can lead to wrong evaluations and treatments. Recognising these biases early on is very important for making

better medical decisions and avoiding mistakes. The results show how important it is to deal with cognitive errors

in medical decision-making to improve outcomes for patients and the efficiency of healthcare (Saposnik et al.,

(2016)).

This study addresses three mental shortcuts for vague decision-making. These heuristics are: (i)

representativeness or judging by similarity, which is used when assessing the likelihood of an object or event

occurring; (ii) availability of situations, which is used when assessing the frequency of a class or the plausibility of

a specific development; and (iii) anchoring and adjustment from a starting point, which is used in numerical

analysis. These heuristics are cost-effective and usually effective, however they cause systematic and predictable

errors. This research began by asking how people make innate probability estimations. These ratings appear to be

based on distinct mental activity (Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974)).

The paper examines environmental changes, cognitive biases, and strategic decisions. It uses a

comprehensive literature evaluation to understand how cognitive biases affect strategic choices in shifting

conditions and suggest further research. The study emphasises the need of recognising and correcting cognitive

biases in decision-making, especially in complex and changing situations. Understanding cognitive biases and

14
strategic judgements during environmental changes is essential for informed decision-making (Acciarini et al.,

(2021)).

Using data asymmetry and risk perception, this study analyses how behavioural biases, notably anchoring

bias and optimism bias, affect investment decisions in poor nations. The quantitative study of 317 real estate

investors indicates that cognitive biases strongly influence investment decisions and outcomes. Anchoring bias

makes investors rely on present pricing, which influences spending, whereas optimism bias helps investors invest.

The research emphasises the relevance of knowing how cognitive biases affect risk perception and financial

decision-making, suggesting that confidence in bias management might improve financial outcomes. (Zhang et al.,

(2022)).

This study examined cognitive biases and investment decisions in Nepal's Pokhara Valley. Remorse

aversion, overconfidence, availability, anchoring, and herd instinct affect rational investment decision-making.

Primary data sources were employed for convenience sampling in this study. Seven brokerage firms operate in

Pokhara, and researchers selected 179 stock market investors. We used descriptive and inferential analysis to

analyse the data. Overconfidence, availability, and herd instinct biases were linked to irrational financial decisions,

while regret aversion and anchoring biases were not.

Even while all biases are linked to irrational investing, overconfidence bias has the largest impact. Regret

aversion bias affects investing decisions the least of the four biases. This study has various implications for

brokers, governments, and investors who seek to promote stock market investment. (Dhungana et al., (2022)).

The paper examines cognitive bias in legal decision-making. This article examines how cognitive bias

affects clients and lawyers, based on cognitive science and law studies. Due to these mistakes, a client may

undervalue risk by making a risk value judgement. These small mental biases might cause us to ignore important

15
information and make incorrect predictions while making decisions. This can cause extensive decision-making

errors.

The article includes vivid examples of how prejudice has affected both the client and the lawyer and offers

ideas on how to recognise and manage bias. In conclusion, thorough research and introspection will help us

become better legal advisors, but we have yet to accurately analyse lawyerly judgement (Weinstein, I. (2002)).

This study shows how deep-rooted cognitive biases might stifle green policy development to create a more

sustainable and livable society. This research suggests informational and psychological therapies, incentives, and

nudges to counteract bias in today's culture. Biassed information processing has served us well for most of our

lives. Removing human prejudices appears unlikely to solve modern problems. Therefore, we must always be

aware of cognitive biases' extensive effects and humble about our ability to solve complex long-term problems

easily. The paper's findings suggest that such a strategy is likely to fail due to our tendency to undervalue future

consequences. We should presumably use our knowledge of cognitive biases. Social comparison may lead to a

campaign linking the purchase of sustainable solar panels, a heat pump, or a gorgeous e-bike to status and prestige.

Pro-environmental communications should be simple, consistent, repetitive, and obvious, emphasising on one's

actions' impacts rather than complex intervening processes (Korteling et al., (2023)).

This study examines how cognitive biases and variables affect critical care decision-making and other

topics. This analysis found four key biases: cognitive biases, personal factors, contextual factors, and patient

features in thirty varied studies. Cognitive biases affect clinical judgements and can cause major problems.

Omission bias, status quo bias, implicit and explicit prejudice, and overconfidence bias were the most

common biases found later in the study. Cognitive biases and contextual, personal, and patient-related factors

affect critical care physicians' everyday decision-making. Physician experience, family presence, and disease

factors affected critical care decisions. However, further research is needed to determine cognitive biases and

16
factors' prevalence and effects on therapy outcomes. Knowing more about decision making may help eliminate

critical care cognitive biases (Beldhuis et al, (2021)).

This study examines how cognitive biases steer strategy. A retrospective view of the universe makes things

seem more orderly. Results are remembered as more predictable than expected. This paper begins with strategy and

environmental uncertainty. After discussing organisational and environmental elements, a model of how cognitive

processes affect environmental uncertainty and strategy is offered. Finally, the paper discusses management and

research consequences. This research aims to explain how cognitive bias affects strategy design (Bukszar Jr, E.

(1999)).

According to this study, the market is highly competitive, thus enterprises must succeed and make good

decisions to survive. But biases hinder final decision-making at all managerial levels. This study examines

cognitive biases, good decision-making, and organisational efficiency. These links should demonstrate the

statistically sound issues the study will address. Kerala's manufacturing and service industries were surveyed via

questionnaire. SPSS and AMOS were used to examine the responses, and RIDIT was used to select the most

important components. Therefore, the current study concludes that any organisation, especially industrial units,

should reduce and eliminate decision-making biases to increase long-term organisational performance and

sustainability. CEOs and top managers should recognise cognitive biases and implement de-biasing methods to

eradicate them during decision-making, enhancing organisational effectiveness, according to the study

(Ramalakshmi et al., (2019)).

This study shows how cognitive biases among entrepreneurs are a crucial topic in analysing entrepreneurial

performance. Overconfidence and optimism bias help entrepreneurs start firms but also cause failure, study shows.

Few studies have used cognitive biases to explain entrepreneurial outcomes. While optimism bias and distrust are

17
linked to overconfidence, they have very different effects on survival when treated independently. Without

overconfidence, distrustful people are more likely to work for surviving companies than unrealistic optimists.

Overconfidence and false optimism are a recipe for entrepreneurial failure. The study found that cognitive biases

affect organisational elements differently (Gudmundsson, S. V., & Lechner, C. (2013)).

This study shows how cognitive biases can cause systematic errors and irrational decisions. The recent

decade has seen more research on how cognitive biases affect knowledge seeking and retrieval. In specifically,

how such biases might negatively effect assessments because searchers may seek confirmation but false

information or depend on an incorrect initial search result. This perspectives paper (1) collected and catalogued

recent research on cognitive biases in information retrieval and (2) critically reviewed and commented on these

studies and their findings. In a report on over thirty empirical studies of cognitive biases in search, over forty major

findings were linked to diverse domains (e.g., health, web, socio-political) and search process stages (e.g.,

querying, assessing, judging). This paper emphasises the importance of this research area and critically discusses

the limitations, difficulties, and challenges of studying this phenomenon, as well as open questions and future

directions in studying cognitive biases in information retrieval, both positive and negative (Azzopardi, L. (2021,

March)).

Cognitive models of social anxiety emphasise cognitive biases (attention bias, interpretation bias) and

executive dysfunctions, which have been examined separately. This study examined their relationships using

network analysis to identify cognitive process links and cluster analysis to show how these correlations (or

combinations) occur in a population. A total of 147 general community members completed attention control,

attention bias, interpretation bias, and social anxiety symptoms tests. Network analysis showed a correlation

between social anxiety symptoms and interpretation bias, but no other meaningful associations. Cluster analysis

indicated two groups: one with adaptive cognitive biases (low cognitive biases, great executive function) and the

18
other with maladaptive biases (high interpretation bias, good alerting but poor executive function). Maladaptive

people had more social anxiety than adapted people. The findings suggest that interpretation bias and social anxiety

symptoms are linked, although attention bias is also suspected. Attention control, especially executive function,

may reduce cognitive bias-induced anxiety (Claus, N., Takano, K., & Wittekind, C. E. (2023)).

Attention, interpretation, and memory biases in depression are examined in this study. Following attention

and interpretive bias tests, subclinically depressed and nondepressed participants took a memory test. Path analysis

showed that attention bias caused interpretation bias, which affected memory bias. Maintaining attention and

interpretive biases also affected memory bias. These data corroborate the combined cognitive biases hypothesis,

showing emotionally biassed cognitive processes affect memory. The findings illuminate how attention and

interpretation mechanisms shape memory formation, affecting depression and emotion control theories (Everaert,

J., Duyck, W., & Koster, E. H. W. (2014)).

This study confirms the presence of cognitive biases in anxiety, including attentional vigilance towards

threats, pessimistic interpretation of ambiguous stimuli, and heightened perception of negative events. It suggests

an evolutionary framework for understanding these reactions and proposes a descriptive model aligning with

experimental evidence, allowing for response modification through learning. A computational model successfully

replicates changes in reaction time with increasing anxiety levels. Future research aims to explore the causal nature

of these biases and investigate training techniques for inducing change (Mathews et al., (1997)).

This study examines how attentional control moderates trait anxiety, cognitive biases, and delusion-like

experiences (PLEs) in non-clinical adults. External attribution bias predicts PLEs in both high and low-anxiety

groups, but attention to threat bias and belief inflexibility only in the low-anxiety group. Attentional control also

19
moderates the relationship between threat bias and PLEs in low-anxiety people, demonstrating that trait anxiety

affects the relationship between cognitive biases and PLEs (Prochwicz, K., & Kłosowska, J. (2018)).

Researchers examined the cross-sectional relationships between cognitive biases (attentional bias and

approach bias) and alcohol use, as well as the moderating effects of gender, attentional control, and inhibitory

control. The sample included 94 adolescents and young adults (52.1% boys) aged 15.3–20.8 (Mage = 18.0, SD =

1.1) who reported using alcohol in the past three months. Stronger approach bias was linked to increased alcohol

usage in boys exclusively. In addition, teenagers with low attentional bias and high attentional control had the

lowest alcohol use, showing that both characteristics protect against alcohol use. This study replicates and expands

adolescent and young adult cognitive bias and addiction studies (Willem et al, (2013)).

Deficient cognitive control of emotional material and cognitive biases are fundamental factors of

depression, but how they affect depressive symptoms is unclear. This study examined the relationships between

cognitive biases (negative attention and interpretation biases), depressed symptoms, and defective cognitive

management of emotional information (inhibition, shifting, and updating issues). Hypothesis-driven indirect effect

models predicted depressed symptoms from insufficient cognitive control over emotional content through negative

attention and interpretive biases. Bootstrapping showed that negative attention bias, congruent interpretation bias,

and depressive symptoms were linked to poor inhibitory control over negative material. Negative interpretation

bias caused shifting and updating deficiencies in response to negative material to indirectly affect depression

intensity. Deficient cognitive control over emotional content did not directly affect depression symptoms. These

findings may aid in understanding the cognitive causes of depression (Everaert, J., Grahek, I., & Koster, E. H.

(2017)).

20
 Experimental psychopathologists have studied cognitive impairments that may cause and maintain OCD for

30 years. Since self-report and information-processing methods yield different cognitive abnormality data, we

evaluate research on dysfunctional beliefs and cognitive deficiencies in OCD in this work. First, we discuss

disorder-related dysfunctional and metacognitive beliefs. OCD is related with maladaptive evaluations (e.g.,

increased responsibility) and metacognitive beliefs (e.g., desire to regulate thoughts), but these are not always

present. Our next review covers OCD's memory and attentional deficiencies and biases. This research suggests that

patients with the condition exhibit memory and attention biases that may be related to metacognitive views about

their ability to remember and attend to stimuli, but there is inconsistent evidence for memorial and attentional

deficiencies. We conclude with recent research suggesting that OCD sufferers have restricted access to internal

states, forcing them to use rituals to resolve ambiguity. We examine implications and future directions (Hezel, D.

M., & McNally, R. J. (2016).

This research identifies cognitive biases in information retrieval. This study collected data using various

methods. Research participants included 25 information retrieval specialists and 30 post-grad students. We

collected data using a checklist, log files, and semi-structured interviews. The findings demonstrated that

information retrieval specialists may prioritise cognitive biases such ‘Familiarity’, ‘Anchoring’, ‘Rush to solve’,

and ‘Curse of knowledge’. In user information retrieval, the ‘Rush to solve problems’ and ‘Mere exposure effects’

biases are most common, while the ‘Outcome’ and ‘Curse of knowledge’ biases are least common. Because of

cognitive biases in information retrieval, designers and librarians should consider this while building and

evaluating information systems (Gomroki et al, 2023).

Several studies done in the past few years have shown that people who believe in conspiracies are more

likely to be affected by cognitive biases like the conjunction error, the proportionality bias, the agency detection

bias, and others. The goal of this paper is to look at this kind of literature and organise these ideas into a unified

framework of conspiracy mentality as a set of biassed cognitive processes. This framework divides cognitive biases
21
into two groups: those that help form beliefs and those that help change beliefs. This paper gives an overview of

the role of cognitive biases in conspiratorial thinking based on a number of empirical studies. It suggests areas for

future study and raises questions about the possible flaws of this approach(Gagliardi, L. (2023)).

Using case studies like the KLM Flight 4805 tragedy and the Challenger space shuttle catastrophe, this article

illustrates how cognitive biases contribute to incidents, crashes, and disasters. Confirmation bias, groupthink, and

overconfidence are just a few of the biases that can significantly skew decision-making processes and produce

unfavourable results. In order to avoid similar occurrences in the future, the study highlights the significance of

identifying and eradicating cognitive biases in addition to human factors and ergonomics techniques (Murata, A.,

Nakamura, T., & Karwowski, W. (2015).

2.1 RESEARCH GAPS:

1. The component of differences among people: looking into how things like personality traits or cognitive

skills can lessen the effect of cognitive biases on decision-making and paying attention.

2. The study of temporal dynamics looks at how cognitive biases change over time and how they affect

attention and decision-making at different stages of information processing.

3. Contextual factors: looking at how situational factors, like how hard the job is, how much time is available,

or the social setting, affect decision-making and attention.

4. Cultural factors: Looking into how differences in culture affect the number of people who have cognitive

errors and how they affect decision-making and paying attention, as well as how culture may change these

effects.

22
5. From a developmental point of view, we look at how cognitive biases appear and change at different stages

of development, from childhood to adults, and how they affect attention and decision-making throughout

the life span.

3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-

3.1.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES-

1. To examine the impact of cognitive biases on decision making and attention across all age groups in

different settings.

2. Investigate the specific cognitive biases that most significantly impact decision-making processes

and attention across various domains, such as finance, healthcare, or corporate settings.

3. To look into possible interventions or techniques that could help lessen the bad effects of cognitive

biases on decision-making and attention, and see how well they work and whether they are possible

to use in real life.

3.1.2 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES-

23
  (H1)Decision-making and attention are primarily shaped by cognitive biases, which have a major impact

even in the absence of other variables.

 (H2)Cognitive biases change throughout life and affect attention and decision-making differently

depending on the developmental stage. It makes the prediction that during particular stages of development,

some biases might be more evident or significant.

 (H3)Contextual elements like task complexity, time constraints, and social context mitigate the effects of

cognitive biases on decision-making and attention. According to this prediction, the situational setting in

which judgements are made affects how biases behave.

 (H4)The presence of cognitive biases significantly influences decision-making processes across various

domains, leading individuals to systematically deviate from rationality.

 (H5)The connection between cognitive biases and the way we make decisions and pay attention is dynamic

and can be affected by many things around us, such as the demands of the job, cues from our environment,

and our own personal goals.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN-

3.2.1 Type of Research-

A quantitative study will be appropriate for examining the effects of cognitive biases on decision-making

and attention. For this study, a questionnaire will be made to find out people's cognitive biases, how they usually

make decisions, and how they see things in different areas. Standardized tests for cognitive biases (like the

cognitive bias questionnaire), decision-making styles (like the decision making styles inventory), and attention

processes like the attention control scale would be used. The study will involve collecting responses from people of

various age groups and occupations and combining theem to examine the impact of cognitive biases across various

domains.

24
 Correlation type of research will be used as it a useful research for investigating the relationship among

variables. In this research, correlation analysis enables us to examine the relationship between cognitive biases,

decision-making and attention among participants.

Correlation research also gives us a way to measure the strength and direction of the links between different

factors using numbers. When we use correlation factors like Pearson's r or Spearman's rho, we can figure out how

strongly two variables are connected and how well changes in one variable can predict changes in another. This

statistical data gives useful information about the types and strengths of relationships between factors, which helps

us make predictions and interpretations.

3.2.2 Data Collection Methods-

Data in this research was collected through an online survey created by Google forms. Using Google Forms

for data collection in quantitative analysis, it offered several advantages, including ease of use, accessibility, and

efficient data management. Answers to Google Forms are automatically saved in a Google Sheets spreadsheet that

is connected to the form as they are received. This makes it possible to track replies in real time and handle data

easily. To guarantee data quality and handle any problems that can come up throughout the data gathering process,

a close eye on the responses can be kept on a regular basis. The form can be shared through various platforms such

as whatsapp, email, or embedded on websites. Google Forms for data collection can be used in quantitative

analysis, facilitating efficient data collection, management, and analysis for your research project.

3.2.3 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES/ INSTRUMENTS-

25
 1. Cognitive biases Questionnaire (CBQ)-

A psychometric tool called the Cognitive Bias Questionnaire (CBQ) is used to measure people's propensity

to display cognitive biases during decision-making. The CBQ, created in 2008 by Jane L. Risen and Thomas

Gilovich, is designed to assess a range of cognitive biases that are frequently seen in human judgement and

decision-making. Respondents indicate how much they agree or disagree with a sequence of statements or items

pertaining to various cognitive biases that make up the quiz.

Respondents to the CBQ usually score how much they agree or disagree with each statement on a Likert

scale, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." The presence and severity of cognitive biases in

people's decision-making processes are then evaluated by scoring and analysing the responses. The CBQ is

frequently used in psychology research to examine how cognitive biases affect behaviour, judgement, and

decision-making across a range of settings and demographics.

2. General Decision-Making Scale (GDMS)-

The General Decision-Making Scale, or GDMS, is a psychometric tool used to evaluate people's decision-

making tendencies and styles. The GDMS scale was created in 2002 by Scott J. Vitell and James M. Gassenheimer

with the intention of measuring the three aspects of decision-making: morality, equity, and rationality. A series of

statements or items that respondents score on a Likert scale to indicate whether they agree or disagree with are

usually included in the General Decision-Making Scale (GDMS).

3.Attention Control Scale (ACS)-

The Attention Control Scale (ACS) is a psychometric tool used to evaluate people's capacity to handle

distractions and maintain attentional focus. The Attentional Control Scale (ACS), created in 2002 by Derryberry

26
and Reed, attempts to quantify attentional control as a trait-like attribute that represents people's ability to

successfully govern their attentional processes.

Respondents score their agreement or disagreement with a series of statements or items pertaining to

attentional control abilities that make up the Attention Control Scale. The scale's items evaluate different facets of

attention management, including the capacity to concentrate, block out distractions, and pay attention for extended

periods of time. Using a Likert scale, respondents usually indicate how much they agree or disagree with each

statement (e.g., from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree"). After that, the answers are tallied and examined to

determine each person's attentional control proficiency.

In psychology research, the Attention Control Scale is frequently used to examine individual differences in

attentional control capacities and their consequences for learning, memory, problem-solving, and emotion

regulation, among other areas of cognitive functioning.

4.1 SAMPLING DESIGN-

4.1.1 Sample design-

The sample frame for this research consists of various age groups above 16 years of age representing the

targeted population for research. Different age groups show distinct results as compared to others which help in

addressing the hypotheses and aligns with thee research objectives. By collecting responses from all age groups,

we will be able to examine how cognitive biases manifest across different stages of lifespan development.

Additionally, analyzing data across diverse age groups allows for a more comprehensive understanding of

cognitive biases and decision-making tendencies across the adult lifespan.

4.1.2 Sample Unit-

27
 For a quantitative study across various age groups, I have include a diverse range of sample units

representing different age cohorts. Aiming to address the different cognitive biases prevalent in different age

groups, this study has collected various perspectives from individuals.

4.1.3 Sample Location-

A significant portion of the research was carried out in India, but it also included people from other

countries. In order to ensure that participants from a wide range of age groups were represented, participants were

recruited from a variety of contexts, such as educational institutions, community centres, corporate or government

settings, and internet platforms. Participants from urban, suburban, and rural areas were included in the data

collection session, which was conducted online using Google forms. This was done in order to capture the

demographic diversity of the population.

4.1.4 Sampling Method-

To achieve age-balanced representation, stratified sampling was used. Individuals from all age groups were

the target group. First, census statistics or population surveys were used to determine the population's age

distribution. A Google Forms random selection of volunteers from each age group followed. The poll link was

shared on social media, email lists, and community forums to reach all ages. Purposive sampling was used to target

people from varied socioeconomic, educational, and geographic backgrounds to ensure inclusivity and variety

within each age group. We also reduced survey access obstacles and provided clear instructions and incentives to

reduce selection bias. Google Forms allowed respondents to conduct the survey at their convenience and track

answers in real time.

4.1.5 Sampling Size-

28
A sample size of 100 individuals was collected for the research across various age groups and data was analysed

for further analysis.

Variable Age Gend Confirma Intuiti Socia Availabi Decisi Optimi Overconfid Attenti
er tion Bias ve l lity Bias on stic ence Bias on
Bias Proof Makin Bias Contro
Bias g l
Age 1 0.257 0.134 0.199 0.087 0.278** 0.189 0.046 0.103 0.133
** *
Gender 0.257 1 0.012 0.095 - 0.094 0.043 0.080 0.059 -0.004
** 0.044
Confirmati 0.134 0.012 1 0.091 0.123 0.007 0.284 0.099 0.124 0.125
on Bias **
Intuitive 0.199 0.095 0.091 1 0.200 0.403** 0.576 0.137 0.127 0.083
Bias * * **
Social 0.087 - 0.123 0.200 1 0.160 0.646 -0.047 0.036 -0.020
Proof Bias 0.044 * **
Availability 0.278 0.094 0.007 0.403 0.160 1 0.610 0.205* 0.074 0.185
Bias ** ** **
Decision 0.189 0.043 0.284** 0.576 0.646 0.610** 1 0.015 0.069 0.070
Making ** **
Optimistic 0.046 0.080 0.099 0.137 - 0.205* 0.015 1 0.458** 0.747*
29
 Bias 0.047 *
Overconfid 0.103 0.059 0.124 0.127 0.036 0.074 0.069 0.458* 1 0.481*
ence Bias * *
Attention 0.133 - 0.125 0.083 - 0.185 0.070 0.747* 0.481** 1
Control 0.004 0.020 *
5.1 RESULT TABLE-

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

5.2 DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS-

The results of correlation study shows that cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, intuitive bias, overconfidence

bias) affect decision-making and attention. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). . This supports the

hypotheses that cognitive biases influence decision-making and attention even without other variables.

Age:

Age has a positive correlation (indicated by **) with confirmation bias, availability bias, and decision making. This

suggests that older individuals may tend to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs, rely more on easily

recalled examples, and exhibit more complex decision-making processes.

Intuitive Bias and Availability Bias:

Both intuitive bias and availability bias have a strong positive correlation with decision making. This indicates that

people's gut feelings and readily available information play a significant role in how they make choices.

30
Social Proof Bias and Availability Bias:

Social proof bias (relying on others' actions) has a moderate positive correlation with availability bias. This

suggests that people might be more likely to follow the crowd if the information about what others are doing is

easily accessible.

Decision Making and Other Biases:

Decision making shows strong positive correlations with availability bias, optimistic bias, and overconfidence bias.

This suggests that when making decisions, people might be influenced by readily available information, tend to be

overly optimistic about outcomes, and be more confident in their choices than is necessarily justified.

Optimistic Bias and Overconfidence Bias:

Interestingly, optimistic bias and overconfidence bias have a very strong positive correlation with attention control.

This could be interpreted in a few ways: People who are good at focusing their attention might be better at

maintaining a positive outlook and high confidence. Alternatively, optimistic and overconfident individuals might

be better at filtering out negative information, leading to a perception of stronger attention control.

Overall, this data suggests interesting relationships between cognitive biases and decision making, age, and

attention control. Further research would be needed to explore the causal mechanisms and potential interventions to

mitigate negative biases.

31
6. DISCUSSIONS

6.1 Discussion findings

Significant connections between cognitive biases and attention and decision-making processes were found via

correlation analysis. This emphasizes how cognitive biases have a significant impact on how people think and

behave.

The findings also imply that, while this was not specifically addressed in the correlation analysis, cognitive biases

might differ between developmental stages. To learn more about the developmental trajectory of cognitive biases,

future studies should investigate age-related variations in these biases.

Furthermore, no meaningful associations were discovered by the study between cognitive biases and contextual

factors such task complexity, time restrictions, and social context. Further research is necessary; however this

32
could suggest that these variables do not immediately mitigate the impact of cognitive biases on attention and

decision-making.

6.2 Implications

-The results show that cognitive biases should be considered when studying human behavior and decision-making

processes. This is important for understanding how people make choices in many areas.

-Understanding how cognitive biases change over time and how they interact with outside factors can help people

come up with solutions and ways to make decisions that lessen the impact of biases in the real world.

-Also, realizing that cognitive biases affect many stages of development makes it even more important to start early

with education and guidance to help kids become more cognitively aware and learn how to make smart decisions.

6.3 Limitations

-The study has some limitations, like using correlational analysis, which doesn't prove cause and effect. In the

future, researchers might use experimental methods to find out how cognitive biases, decision-making, attention,

and environmental factors all affect each other.

-Because the study sample was made up of people from a certain population, it may not be very representative of

the whole community. To apply the results to larger groups of people, the study may need to be repeated with a

wider range of data.

-On top of that, cognitive biases, decision-making, and focus may all be measured incorrectly or with bias. In the

future, researchers could use more than one method or measure to make the results more accurate and reliable.

33
7. CONCLUSION

This study provides important insights into the complex interaction between cognitive biases, decision-

making, attention, and environmental factors based on the data and findings from the correlation

analysis. The results underline areas that require more research and thought while simultaneously

supporting several important theories.

First off, the findings support the theory that cognitive biases profoundly influence how people make

decisions and focus their attention in a variety of contexts. The associations found between cognitive

biases including confirmation bias, intuitive bias, and overconfidence bias and attention and decision-

making processes indicate that these biases are critical in shaping people's perceptions, interpretations,

and behaviours. Furthermore, the research advances our knowledge of the dynamic character of

34
 cognitive biases and how they affect attention and decision-making at various developmental stages.

The correlation study laid the groundwork for future studies to examine how cognitive biases change

over time and interact with attention and decision-making processes at various stages of life, even

though it did not directly address age-related variations. The outcomes also clarified how contextual

factors function to lessen the impact of cognitive biases. While contextual factors such as task

complexity, time constraints, and social context did not show significant correlations with cognitive

biases, the correlations still provide opportunities for future research to better understand how

situational settings affect the manifestation and impact of cognitive biases in attention and decision-

making.

In summary, this study highlights the significance of cognitive biases in attention and decision-making

processes, highlighting their widespread impact in a variety of settings. On the basis of these results,

future research might explore the mechanisms behind cognitive biases, how they interact with outside

variables, and how they affect decisions made by people. In the end, these initiatives can lead to better

informed and efficient decision-making techniques across a range of areas by deepening our

understanding of the intricacies of attention and decision-making

8. REFERENCES

1. Acciarini, C., Brunetta, F., & Boccardelli, P. (2021). Cognitive biases and decision-making strategies in times of

change: A systematic literature review. Management Decision, 59(3), 638-652.

2. Azzopardi, L. (2021, March). Cognitive biases in search: a review and reflection of cognitive biases in

Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2021 conference on human information interaction and

retrieval (pp. 27-37).

3. Berthet, V. (2022). The impact of cognitive biases on professionals’ decision-making: A review of four

occupational areas. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 802439.

35
4. Beldhuis, I. E., Marapin, R. S., Jiang, Y. Y., de Souza, N. F. S., Georgiou, A., Kaufmann, T., ... & van der

Horst, I. C. (2021). Cognitive biases, environmental, patient and personal factors associated with critical

care decision making: A scoping review. Journal of Critical Care, 64, 144-153.

5. Bukszar Jr, E. (1999). Strategic bias: The impact of cognitive biases on strategy. Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 16(2), 105-117.

6. Claus, N., Takano, K., & Wittekind, C. E. (2023). The interplay between cognitive biases, attention control,

and social anxiety symptoms: A network and cluster approach. Plos one, 18(4), e0282259.

7. Dhungana, B. R., Bhandari, S., Ojha, D., & Sharma, L. K. (2022). Effect of cognitive biases on investment

decision making: A case of Pokhara valley, Nepal. Quest Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 4(1),

71-84.

8. Everaert, J., Grahek, I., & Koster, E. H. (2017). Individual differences in cognitive control over emotional

material modulate cognitive biases linked to depressive symptoms. Cognition and Emotion, 31(4), 736-746.

9. Everaert, J., Tierens, M., Uzieblo, K., & Koster, E. H. (2013). The indirect effect of attention bias on

memory via interpretation bias: Evidence for the combined cognitive bias hypothesis in subclinical

depression. Cognition & emotion, 27(8), 1450-1459.

10. Gagliardi, L. (2023). The role of cognitive biases in conspiracy beliefs: A literature review. Journal of

Economic Surveys.

11. Gomroki, G., Behzadi, H., Fattahi, R., & Salehi Fadardi, J. (2023). Identifying effective cognitive biases in

information retrieval. Journal of Information Science, 49(2), 348-358.

12. Gudmundsson, S. V., & Lechner, C. (2013). Cognitive biases, organization, and entrepreneurial firm

survival. European Management Journal, 31(3), 278-294.

13. Hezel, D. M., & McNally, R. J. (2016). A theoretical review of cognitive biases and deficits in obsessive–

compulsive disorder. Biological Psychology, 121, 221-232.

36
14. Hristov, I., Camilli, R., & Mechelli, A. (2022). Cognitive biases in implementing a performance

management system: behavioral strategy for supporting managers’ decision-making processes.

Management research review, 45(9), 1110-1136.

15. Korteling, J., Paradies, G. L., & Sassen-van Meer, J. P. (2023). Cognitive bias and how to improve

sustainable decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1129835.

16. Mathews, A., Mackintosh, B., & Fulcher, E. P. (1997). Cognitive biases in anxiety and attention to threat.

Trends in cognitive sciences, 1(9), 340-345.

17. Murata, A., Nakamura, T., & Karwowski, W. (2015). Influence of cognitive biases in distorting decision

making and leading to critical unfavorable incidents. Safety, 1(1), 44-58.

18. Prochwicz, K., & Kłosowska, J. (2018). The interplay between trait anxiety, cognitive biases and

attentional control in healthy individuals with psychotic-like experiences. Psychiatry research, 259, 44-50.

19. Ramalakshmi, V., Haritha, P. M., Hamim Akif, K., & Hari Krishnan, V. (2019, February). The impact of

cognitive biases on organizational effectiveness. In SIMSARC 2018: Proceedings of the 9th Annual

International Conference on 4C’s-Communication, Commerce, Connectivity, Culture, SIMSARC 2018, 17-

19 December 2018, Pune, MH, India (p. 269). European Alliance for Innovation.

20. Saposnik, G., Redelmeier, D., Ruff, C. C., & Tobler, P. N. (2016). Cognitive biases associated with medical

decisions: a systematic review. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 16, 1-14.

21. Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture

formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of business venturing, 15(2), 113-134.

22. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in

judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

23. Weinstein, I. (2002). Don't believe everything you think: Cognitive bias in legal decision making. Clinical

L. Rev., 9, 783.

37
 24. Willem, L., Vasey, M. W., Beckers, T., Claes, L., & Bijttebier, P. (2013). Cognitive biases and alcohol use

in adolescence and young adulthood: The moderating role of gender, attentional control and inhibitory

control. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(8), 925-930.

25. Zhang, M., Nazir, M. S., Farooqi, R., & Ishfaq, M. (2022). Moderating role of information asymmetry

between cognitive biases and investment decisions: A Mediating effect of risk perception. Frontiers in

psychology, 13, 828956.

9. APPENDICES

Age*
Your answer

Gender*
Male
Female
Other

Occupation*
Your answer

I make sure that I have all the facts before I make a decision.
38
True
Somewhat true
False

When I make a decision, I do what feels right.

True
Somewhat true
False

I often ask other people to help me make important decisions.

*
True
Somewhat true
False

I don’t like making decisions, so I try to avoid it.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

I make decisions quickly.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

I make decisions in a slow, logical way.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

When I make a decision, I rely on my instincts.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

I don’t make big decisions without talking to other people first.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

I usually won’t make an important decision until I’m forced to do so.

*
39
True
Sometimes true
False

I don’t think too much about the decisions that I make.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

Making decisions requires careful thought.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

A decision doesn’t need to make sense – it just needs to feel right.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

When I need to make an important decision, I like to have someone point me in the right direction.
*
True
Sometimes true
False

I try to put off making important decisions because thinking about them makes me feel uneasy.
*
True
Sometimes true
False

When I need to make an important decision, I just do what seems natural at the moment.
*
True
Sometimes true
False

I consider all of my options before making a decision.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

40
I rely on my inner feelings when making decisions.
*
True
Sometimes true
False

When I make a decision, I rely on other people’s advice.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

I usually make important decisions at the last minute.

*
True
Sometimes true
False

I often make impulsive decisions.

*
True
Sometimes true
False
It’s very hard for me to concentrate on a difficult task when there are noises around.
1
2
3
4
When I need to concentrate and solve a problem, I have trouble focusing my attention.
1
2
3
4
When I am working hard on something, I still get distracted by events around me.
1
2
3
4
My concentration is good even if there is music in the room around me.
1
2
3
4
When concentrating, I can focus my attention so that I become unaware of what’s going on in the room around me.
41
1
2
3
4
When I am reading or studying, I am easily distracted if there are people talking in the same room.
*
1
2
3
4
When trying to focus my attention on something, I have difficulty blocking out distracting thoughts.
1
2
3
4
I have a hard time concentrating when excited about something.
1
2
3
4

When concentrating I ignore feelings of hunger or thirst.

1
2
3
4

I can quickly switch from one task to another.

1
2
3
4

It takes me a while to get really involved in a new task.

1
2
3
4
It is difficult for me to coordinate my attention between the listening and writing required when taking
notes during lectures.
1
2
3
4
I can become interested in a new topic very quickly when I need to.
42
1
2
3
4
It is easy for me to read or write while I’m also talking on the phone.
1
2
3
4

I have trouble carrying on two conversations at once.

1
2
3
4

I have a hard time coming up with new ideas quickly.

1
2
3
4
After being interrupted or distracted, I can easily shift my attention back to what I was doing before.
1
2
3
4
When a distracting thought comes to mind, it is easy for me to shift my attention away from it.
1
2
3
4
It is easy for me to alternate between two different tasks.
1
2
3
4
It is hard for me to break from one way of thinking about something and look at it from another point of view.
1
2
3
4

43