Home › Cognitive Biases

Cognitive Biases: The Codex of 187 Ways the Mind Takes Shortcuts

The 187 biases of the Cognitive Bias Codex, sorted by the problem the mind is solving when it takes the shortcut. Each page starts with a short demo that lets you feel the bias before explaining it.

187 biases46 interactive demosOne to four minutes each
Cognitive biases: a shopper confidently grabs a jar from an eye-level display, ignoring the same jar shelved below.

In short

A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern in how people judge, remember and decide that departs from what the evidence or the arithmetic would support. The patterns are not random errors: each one is a shortcut that solves a real problem most of the time and fails in a predictable way the rest of the time.

The four problems the mind is solving

The codex, drawn up by Buster Benson in 2016 and illustrated by John Manoogian III, takes the long and overlapping list of named biases and sorts it by the problem each one addresses. Four problems account for all of them.

  • Too much information. There is more arriving than anyone can take in, so the mind filters, and the filters have preferences: for what has changed, for what is repeated, for what confirms what it already believes, for what is bizarre or striking, and for flaws in other people rather than in itself.
  • Not enough meaning. The information that gets through is thin, so the mind fills the gaps with stories, stereotypes, generalizations from one case, projections of its current mood onto the past and the future, and a flattering picture of itself and the people it knows. This is the largest quadrant, with 81 entries.
  • The need to act fast. Decisions have to be made before the evidence is in, so the mind favors the option that feels confident, simple, complete and reversible, and it favors finishing what it has already paid for.
  • What should be remembered. Memory has to be compact, so the mind keeps key elements and discards specifics, edits memories after the fact, and stores events differently depending on how they were experienced.

Every shortcut works more often than it fails, which is why they survive. The pages on this site exist for the times they fail: a single demo per bias, built to let you land on the bias yourself, and a plain account of the study that first documented it, where it shows up, how to counter it, and which neighboring biases it is not.

How to use this codex

The wheel below is the codex drawn as a ring: the four quadrants on the inside, the subcategories in the middle ring, and the 187 named biases around the rim. Hover or tab across a leaf to read its name; the leaves that are already written are links. The list under the wheel has every entry with a one-line definition and a filter box, and it is the faster route on a phone.

Each bias page follows the same shape. It opens with the demo, because a bias that you have just experienced is easier to recognize later than one you have only read about. The demo ends on a result that says in plain words which way you went, shows the figure from the original study, and, once enough people have taken it, the share of visitors who went each way. Nothing you enter leaves your browser except that one outcome label. Below the demo come the definition, how the bias works, the original study, a table of everyday examples, what helps, and the boundary with the nearest biases.

The pages are educational. Noticing a bias in yourself is normal, and the demos are built so that most people land on it; that is what the research predicts. None of this is a diagnosis, and none of it is a substitute for talking to a professional if something here touches a difficulty you are living with.

The codex wheel

Four quadrants on the inside, the subcategories in the middle ring, the 187 biases around the rim. Hover or tab across a leaf to read its name; the leaves with a page are links. On a phone the ring shows the quadrants and the list below does the work.

The Cognitive Bias Codex: 187 biases arranged by quadrant and subcategoryToo much informationToo much informationNot enough meaningNot enough meaningThe need to act fastThe need to act fastWhat should we rememberWhat should we rememberWe favor information that confirms existing beliefsWe notice things already primed in memory or repeated oftenBizarre, funny, or visually striking things stand outWe notice when something changesWe notice flaws in others more easily than in ourselvesWe simplify probabilities and numbersWe fill in characteristics from stereotypes and generalizationsWe imagine ourselves and familiar people more positivelyWe find stories and patterns even in sparse dataWe project our current mindset onto the past and futureWe think we understand what others are thinkingWe prefer simple and complete informationWe favor completing things we have invested inWe preserve autonomy and avoid irreversible decisionsWe discard specifics to form generalizationsWe reduce events and lists to their key elementsWe edit and reinforce some memories after the factWe store memories differently based on how they were experiencedConfirmation biasSelective perceptionObserver effectComingExpectation biasComingOstrich effectComingSemmelweis reflexComingContinued influence effectComingChoice-supportive biasComingPost-purchase rationalizationComingCongruence biasComingObserver-expectancy effectComingSubjective validationComingExperimenter's biasAvailability heuristicBaader-Meinhof phenomenonIllusory truth effectComingFrequency illusionComingOmission biasComingContext effectComingEmpathy gapComingMere-exposure effectComingAttentional biasComingBase-rate fallacyComingCue-dependent forgettingComingMood-congruent memory biasNegativity biasComingVon Restorff effectComingPicture superiority effectComingBizarreness effectComingHumor effectComingSelf-relevance effectFraming effectAnchoringComingContrast effectComingConservatism biasComingMoney illusionComingDistinction biasComingWeber-Fechner lawComingFocusing effectComingNaive realismComingBias blind spotComingNaive cynicismMurphy's lawSurvivorship biasComingNormalcy biasComingThe magical number seven, plus or minus twoComingDenomination effectComingZero-sum biasComingAppeal to probability fallacyComingSubadditivity effectPlacebo effectHalo effectEssentialismFunctional fixednessStereotypingBandwagon effectComingCheerleader effectComingAuthority biasComingMental accountingComingAutomation biasComingJust-world hypothesisComingOut-group homogeneity biasComingUltimate attribution errorComingReactive devaluationComingGroup attribution errorComingIn-group favoritismComingPositivity effectComingCross-race effectComingMoral credential effectComingArgument from fallacyComingNot-invented-here syndromeComingWell-traveled road effectFundamental attribution errorDunning-Kruger effectSocial desirability biasBarnum effectFalse consensus effectSelf-serving biasOptimism biasComingActor-observer biasComingEgocentric biasComingIllusion of controlComingIllusory superiorityComingLake Wobegon effectComingOverconfidence effectComingForer effectComingDefensive attribution hypothesisComingThird-person effectComingHard-easy effectComingTrait ascription biasPareidoliaAnthropomorphismConfabulationGambler's fallacyIllusory correlationComingAnecdotal fallacyComingClustering illusionComingIllusion of validityComingRecency illusionComingHot-hand fallacyComingNeglect of probabilityComingInsensitivity to sample sizeComingMasked-man fallacyHindsight biasComingPlanning fallacyComingRosy retrospectionComingImpact biasComingMoral luckComingOutcome biasComingProjection biasComingDeclinismComingPessimism biasComingRestraint biasComingTelescoping effectComingPro-innovation biasComingSelf-consistency biasComingTime-saving biasSpotlight effectComingCurse of knowledgeComingIllusion of transparencyComingIllusion of asymmetric insightComingIllusion of external agencyComingExtrinsic incentive errorOccam's razorInformation biasComingConjunction fallacyComingBelief biasComingLaw of trivialityComingAmbiguity biasComingLess-is-better effectComingRhyme-as-reason effectComingBike-shedding effectSunk cost fallacyEndowment effectLoss aversionComingEscalation of commitmentComingHyperbolic discountingComingIKEA effectComingDisposition effectComingEffort justificationComingPeltzman effectComingIdentifiable victim effectComingGeneration effectComingUnit biasComingRisk compensationComingAppeal to noveltyComingZero-risk biasComingPseudocertainty effectComingIrrational escalationComingProcessing difficulty effectReverse psychologyStatus quo biasComingReactanceComingBackfire effectComingDecoy effectComingSystem justificationComingSocial comparison effectPrejudiceComingImplicit associationComingFading affect biasComingImplicit stereotypesComingStereotypical biasPrimacy effectMisinformation effectRecency effectComingPeak-end ruleSerial-position effectComingDuration neglectComingLeveling and sharpeningComingSuffix effectComingModality effectComingMemory inhibitionComingList-length effectComingPart-set cueing effectComingSerial recall effectFalse memorySpacing effectComingCryptomnesiaComingSuggestibilityComingSource confusionComingMisattribution of memoryTesting effectComingGoogle effectComingAbsent-mindednessComingTip-of-the-tongue phenomenonComingNext-in-line effectComingLevels-of-processing effectCognitive Bias Codex187 biases in four quadrants

Every bias, by quadrant

1. Too much information

There is too much information, so the mind filters.

We favor information that confirms existing beliefs

  • Confirmation biasLooking for, reading and remembering evidence that fits what you already believe, and skipping the rest.
  • Selective perceptionPeople notice, weigh and remember the parts of a scene that fit what they already expect or want.
  • Observer effectPeople behave differently when they know they are being watched, which confounds what a study measures.
  • Expectation biasComing
  • Ostrich effectComing
  • Semmelweis reflexComing
  • Continued influence effectComing
  • Choice-supportive biasComing
  • Post-purchase rationalizationComing
  • Congruence biasComing
  • Observer-expectancy effectComing
  • Subjective validationComing
  • Experimenter's biasComing

We notice things already primed in memory or repeated often

  • Availability heuristicJudging how common or likely something is by how easily examples of it come to mind.
  • Baader-Meinhof phenomenonAfter you learn a new term it seems to turn up everywhere; it was there before you were looking.
  • Illusory truth effectA statement heard before is rated more likely true than a new one, whatever its truth.
  • Frequency illusionComing
  • Omission biasComing
  • Context effectComing
  • Empathy gapComing
  • Mere-exposure effectComing
  • Attentional biasComing
  • Base-rate fallacyComing
  • Cue-dependent forgettingComing
  • Mood-congruent memory biasComing

Bizarre, funny, or visually striking things stand out

  • Negativity biasNegative information weighs more in a judgment than positive information of the same size.
  • Von Restorff effectComing
  • Picture superiority effectComing
  • Bizarreness effectComing
  • Humor effectComing
  • Self-relevance effectComing

We notice when something changes

  • Framing effectPeople choose differently when the same outcome is worded as a gain rather than as a loss.
  • AnchoringA number seen first pulls later estimates toward it, even when the number is arbitrary or absurd.
  • Contrast effectComing
  • Conservatism biasComing
  • Money illusionComing
  • Distinction biasComing
  • Weber-Fechner lawComing
  • Focusing effectComing

We notice flaws in others more easily than in ourselves

  • Naive realismComing
  • Bias blind spotComing
  • Naive cynicismComing

2. Not enough meaning

There is not enough meaning, so the mind fills the gaps.

We simplify probabilities and numbers

  • Murphy's lawThe sense that whatever can go wrong will, built from physics, lopsided odds and a memory for misses.
  • Survivorship biasJudging by the cases that made it through, and forgetting the ones that did not, distorts a conclusion.
  • Normalcy biasComing
  • The magical number seven, plus or minus twoComing
  • Denomination effectComing
  • Zero-sum biasComing
  • Appeal to probability fallacyComing
  • Subadditivity effectComing

We fill in characteristics from stereotypes and generalizations

  • Placebo effectImprovement after a treatment with no active ingredient, driven by expectation, ritual and attention.
  • Halo effectOne positive impression, such as warmth or good looks, spreads to unrelated qualities like skill.
  • EssentialismTreating people, groups and objects as having a hidden inner nature that makes them what they are.
  • Functional fixednessKnowing what an object is for gets in the way of seeing the other thing it could do.
  • StereotypingFilling in what a person is like from the group they seem to belong to, and ignoring the odds.
  • Bandwagon effectPeople adopt a belief, product or candidate partly because many others already have.
  • Cheerleader effectComing
  • Authority biasComing
  • Mental accountingComing
  • Automation biasComing
  • Just-world hypothesisComing
  • Out-group homogeneity biasComing
  • Ultimate attribution errorComing
  • Reactive devaluationComing
  • Group attribution errorComing
  • In-group favoritismComing
  • Positivity effectComing
  • Cross-race effectComing
  • Moral credential effectComing
  • Argument from fallacyComing
  • Not-invented-here syndromeComing
  • Well-traveled road effectComing

We imagine ourselves and familiar people more positively

  • Fundamental attribution errorExplaining other people's behavior by their character while overlooking the situation that produced it.
  • Dunning-Kruger effectPeople with the least skill in a domain tend to rate themselves well above their actual level.
  • Social desirability biasAnswering as the answer should look rather than as it is, on surveys and in interviews.
  • Barnum effectA description vague enough to fit almost anyone reads as a precise account of you.
  • False consensus effectPeople overestimate how many others share their own choices, beliefs and habits.
  • Self-serving biasPeople credit their successes to themselves and put their failures down to circumstances or others.
  • Optimism biasPeople rate their chances of good events above average and of bad ones below, more than the odds allow.
  • Actor-observer biasComing
  • Egocentric biasComing
  • Illusion of controlComing
  • Illusory superiorityComing
  • Lake Wobegon effectComing
  • Overconfidence effectComing
  • Forer effectComing
  • Defensive attribution hypothesisComing
  • Third-person effectComing
  • Hard-easy effectComing
  • Trait ascription biasComing

We find stories and patterns even in sparse data

  • PareidoliaSeeing a face, a figure or a pattern in something that has none, such as a cloud, a socket or toast.
  • AnthropomorphismAttributing a human mind, with intentions and feelings, to something that is not human.
  • ConfabulationGiving a confident, sincere explanation or memory that is not the real one.
  • Gambler's fallacyAfter a run of one outcome, people expect the other to be due, even when each event is independent.
  • Illusory correlationA link read into two unrelated things, often between a small group and rare events.
  • Anecdotal fallacyComing
  • Clustering illusionComing
  • Illusion of validityComing
  • Recency illusionComing
  • Hot-hand fallacyComing
  • Neglect of probabilityComing
  • Insensitivity to sample sizeComing
  • Masked-man fallacyComing

We project our current mindset onto the past and future

  • Hindsight biasOnce an outcome is known, it looks far more predictable than it was beforehand.
  • Planning fallacyComing
  • Rosy retrospectionComing
  • Impact biasComing
  • Moral luckComing
  • Outcome biasComing
  • Projection biasComing
  • DeclinismComing
  • Pessimism biasComing
  • Restraint biasComing
  • Telescoping effectComing
  • Pro-innovation biasComing
  • Self-consistency biasComing
  • Time-saving biasComing

We think we understand what others are thinking

  • Spotlight effectPeople overestimate how much others notice their appearance, their slips and their contributions.
  • Curse of knowledgeComing
  • Illusion of transparencyComing
  • Illusion of asymmetric insightComing
  • Illusion of external agencyComing
  • Extrinsic incentive errorComing

3. The need to act fast

There is no time, so the mind favors the quick, confident option.

We prefer simple and complete information

  • Occam's razorPreferring the explanation with the fewest assumptions, which is a tie-breaker and not a proof.
  • Information biasSeeking more information even when no possible answer could change what you are going to do.
  • Conjunction fallacyComing
  • Belief biasComing
  • Law of trivialityComing
  • Ambiguity biasComing
  • Less-is-better effectComing
  • Rhyme-as-reason effectComing
  • Bike-shedding effectComing

We favor completing things we have invested in

  • Sunk cost fallacyContinuing something because of what has already been spent on it, when only what comes next counts.
  • Endowment effectPeople put a higher price on something once they own it than they would pay to get it.
  • Loss aversionA loss of a given size weighs more in a decision than a gain of the same size.
  • Escalation of commitmentComing
  • Hyperbolic discountingComing
  • IKEA effectComing
  • Disposition effectComing
  • Effort justificationComing
  • Peltzman effectComing
  • Identifiable victim effectComing
  • Generation effectComing
  • Unit biasComing
  • Risk compensationComing
  • Appeal to noveltyComing
  • Zero-risk biasComing
  • Pseudocertainty effectComing
  • Irrational escalationComing
  • Processing difficulty effectComing

We preserve autonomy and avoid irreversible decisions

  • Reverse psychologyPushing someone toward a choice by forbidding it, which works through resistance to being steered.
  • Status quo biasWhatever is already in place gets chosen more often than it would if it were offered fresh.
  • ReactanceComing
  • Backfire effectComing
  • Decoy effectComing
  • System justificationComing
  • Social comparison effectComing

4. What should we remember

Memory has to be compact, so the mind keeps key elements and edits the rest.

We discard specifics to form generalizations

  • PrejudiceA negative attitude toward people for the group they belong to, held before and in spite of the facts.
  • Implicit associationComing
  • Fading affect biasComing
  • Implicit stereotypesComing
  • Stereotypical biasComing

We reduce events and lists to their key elements

  • Primacy effectWhat comes first is remembered best, and it colors how everything after it is read.
  • Misinformation effectMisleading details supplied after an event get folded into the memory of the event itself.
  • Recency effectThe last items in a list are recalled best, and the latest information weighs most in a judgment.
  • Peak-end ruleComing
  • Serial-position effectThe first and last items on a list are remembered far better than the ones in the middle.
  • Duration neglectComing
  • Leveling and sharpeningComing
  • Suffix effectComing
  • Modality effectComing
  • Memory inhibitionComing
  • List-length effectComing
  • Part-set cueing effectComing
  • Serial recall effectComing

We edit and reinforce some memories after the fact

  • False memoryA memory can feel detailed and certain and still be of something that did not happen.
  • Spacing effectStudy spread over several sessions is remembered far better than the same study packed into one.
  • CryptomnesiaComing
  • SuggestibilityComing
  • Source confusionComing
  • Misattribution of memoryComing

We store memories differently based on how they were experienced

  • Testing effectRecalling material on a test strengthens memory for it more than spending the same time rereading it.
  • Google effectComing
  • Absent-mindednessComing
  • Tip-of-the-tongue phenomenonComing
  • Next-in-line effectComing
  • Levels-of-processing effectComing

Cognitive Biases FAQ

What is a cognitive bias?

A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern in judgment, memory or decision making that departs from what the evidence or the arithmetic would support. The word systematic matters: a bias is not a random mistake but a predictable one, which is why it can be demonstrated in a laboratory, replicated across people, and, with some effort, planned around. Most biases are shortcuts that work well in ordinary conditions and fail in specific ones.

What is the Cognitive Bias Codex?

It is a diagram published by Buster Benson in 2016 and drawn by John Manoogian III that arranges the named cognitive biases listed on Wikipedia into four groups according to the problem each one helps the mind solve: too much information, not enough meaning, the need to act fast, and what should be remembered. The version used here has 187 unique entries, each with its own page and demo.

How many cognitive biases are there?

There is no fixed number, because biases are named by researchers as they are documented and the names overlap. The codex lists 187 unique entries after duplicates are merged. Some are robust, replicated effects with decades of research behind them, such as anchoring and the framing effect; others are single findings or informal labels. Each page here says which kind it is and cites the study it rests on.

Are cognitive biases bad?

They are trade-offs. The shortcuts that produce biases let people decide quickly with incomplete information, which is the normal condition of life, and they are right far more often than they are wrong. The cost appears in specific situations: a medical decision framed in one direction, a hiring judgment colored by one trait, an investment strategy copied from survivors. Knowing where a shortcut fails is more useful than trying to switch it off.

Can you get rid of cognitive biases?

Mostly no, and awareness alone changes little; people who can explain a bias perfectly still show it. What works is changing the procedure rather than the person: writing predictions down before the outcome, scoring candidates on fixed criteria, restating a choice in the opposite frame, asking who is missing from a sample. Each page on this site ends with the counter-measures that have evidence behind them for that particular bias.

How do the demos on these pages work?

Each demo is a short, self-contained version of an experiment from the research on that bias, built to run in your browser with nothing stored except, for a few demos, which version you were shown. It ends with a result that names which way you went and shows the figure from the original study. One outcome label per visit is added to an aggregate counter so the page can report the share of visitors who went each way. No answers, scores or identifiers are kept.

References

  1. Benson, B. (2016). Cognitive bias cheat sheet. Better Humans. betterhumans.pub
  2. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. doi.org
  3. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451-482. doi.org
  4. Haselton, M. G., Nettle, D., & Andrews, P. W. (2005). The evolution of cognitive bias. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 724-746). Wiley. doi.org

Cite this source

Psychology.com. (2026, October 20). Cognitive Biases. Psychology.com. https://psychology.com/biases/

Important: This page and its demo are educational: they describe a pattern in how people think, not a diagnosis, a test of ability or a treatment. If something here touches a difficulty you are living with, reach out to a licensed mental-health professional. In an emergency, call your local emergency number or, in the US, call or text 988.