This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Cognitive science (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

(Apologies, this was posted on the wrong talk page. Now moved here.) MartinPoulter (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear if it is referring to sex bias (biological) or gender bias (social role) . It appears to conflate the two which would evolutionary result from very different pressures and result in different presentations. For instance, a male choosing to present as female may or may not inherit certain biases. No support given either way. Perhaps change to "sex bias" or "gender (sex) for clarity as it appears that is the bias being referenced. 209.213.173.27 (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article states that Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender, so the conflation is not an editorial mistake, but a feature of the topic. Paradoctor (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of Hedonic recall bias contain a mistake as of today:

A = "people who are satisfied with their wage"

B = "overestimate how much they earn"

The definition is "A -> B, vice versa, not(A) -> not(B)"

Usually vise versa is meant for "If A implies B, then B implies A.".

Here the operation is the inverse or converse, not vice versa.

The mistake is found to be quoted from the source material. Oversleep9 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-- Edit

This biais seems poorly studied. Take it with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oversleep9 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Paradoctor (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcubic Can you explain your reasoning for including Aesthetic–usability effect under the heading Cognitive dissonance? The article on the effect does not mention cognitive dissonance and I can't see what the connection is supposed to be. Also, can we find a more mainstream citation than a thesis, like a peer-reviewed paper or book that shows the term is in scholarly use? Finally, you've said it is "obvious" that the effect is a cognitive bias: what definition of "cognitive bias" are you using? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinPoulter: I was not sure which was the proper section. I just found about this bias in an article about UX. Google shows some results and I found that there is a Wikipedia article, but it didn't say explicitly that it's a "cognitive bias" but the explanation of the effect is the explanation of a bias. So I thought that it should be included on the list.

But I can find some better reference that mention that this is in fact a "cognitive bias". From my understanding it don't need explanation, only a citation that something like this exist.

However, if you think that this is not a "cognitive bias" I'm ok with that. I'm not an expert in this field, and also English is not my native language. jcubic (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]