Bias Summary: Assume something belongs to a category because it looks typical.

Surface similarity overrides base-rate data, prompting stereotyping and faulty probability judgments. Research context: Cognitive-psychology research treats biases as predictable shortcuts that can be useful under time pressure but can also systematically distort judgment. The distortion grows when evidence is ambiguous, emotionally charged, or aligned with prior beliefs. Pattern-specific focus: Assume something belongs to a category because it looks typical. Practical review method: separate factual claims from interpretation, check source quality, and test whether the conclusion survives alternative explanations.

How to recognize representativeness heuristic yourself

• One-sided evidence selection while conflicting evidence is minimized.
• Probability judgments based on vivid anecdotes instead of base-rate data.
• Confidence level that is higher than the quality of available evidence.
• Identity, loyalty, or prior commitment treated as evidence.

Verification questions

• What disconfirming evidence would change this conclusion, and is it shown?
• Are estimates grounded in representative data or in memorable examples?
• Would the same reasoning be accepted if group identity or prior beliefs were reversed?

Failed to load people summary; Failed to load publications summary; Failed to load article summary

High offenders