Table 1.
Overview of human cognition biases relevant for sustainable behavior, together with possible coping or mitigation strategies
| Name | Definition | Coping or mitigation strategies |
|---|---|---|
| Sunk cost fallacy | The fallacy to include costs already incurred (“sunk”) in a decision regarding continuation or abandonment of a project | Raising awareness by education and training of decision makers Structuring of decision process by facilitators |
| Neglect of probability | The non-reaction to changes in probabilities of possible outcomes | Use of decision frameworks incorporating all information available, such as statistical decision theory or expected utility Improve communication of risks and uncertainties Provide decision makers with statistical training |
| Zero-risk bias | The overvaluation of choice options that promise zero risk compared to options with non-zero risk and overall greater absolute reduction of risk with regard to the status quo | Put emphasis on total quantities rather than proportions in communication to decision makers Highlight opportunity costs of choice options |
| Default bias | The tendency to stick with the default option in a decision context if such a default option is specified | May be used as “nudge” towards desired outcomes by setting appropriate defaults while maintaining full freedom of choice |
| Status quo bias | The bias towards the current state of things, i.e., towards the status quo, over possible alternatives | E.g., policy bundling in case of policy options with high societal net present value but large upfront investments |
| Affect heuristic | A mental mechanism guiding decisions based on the fast, intuitive, automatic, emotional, effortless, and implicit mode of thinking | Joint evaluation of all choice options Slight delay of entry into force of policy options to choose from Require choice justification in front of others |
| Group polarization | “The exaggeration through group discussion of initial tendencies in the thinking of group members” (Brehm et al. 2002, p. 272) | Moderation putting emphasis on outcome uncertainty |
| In-group/outgroup Bias | Favoring a group with which an individual psychologically identifies over those with which one does not | Moderation and mediation by psychologically trained experts Adoption of Rawls’ veil of ignorance as reasoning principle Moderation should stress uncertain nature of outcomes |