Editing Availability heuristic (section)

==Applications==

===Media===
After seeing news stories about child abductions, people may judge that the [[likelihood]] of this event is greater. [[Media coverage]] can help fuel a person's example bias with widespread and extensive coverage of unusual events, such as [[homicide]] or [[airline accident]]s, and less coverage of more routine, less sensational events, such as common diseases or [[car accident]]s. For example, when asked to rate the probability of a variety of causes of death, people tend to rate "newsworthy" events as more likely because they can more readily recall an example from memory.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Media's Impact on Society – Media & Society Issues Explained |date=27 February 2022 |url=https://mediaandsociety.org/medias-impact-on-society/ |access-date=2022-11-14 |language=en-US}}</ref> Moreover, unusual and vivid events like homicides, [[shark attacks]], or [[lightning]] are more often reported in mass media than common and un-sensational causes of death like common diseases.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-08-04 |title=Social Media's Impact on Society |url=https://www.adcouncil.org/all-articles/social-medias-impact-on-society |access-date=2022-11-14 |website=Ad Council Org |language=en}}</ref>

For example, many people think that the likelihood of dying from shark attacks is greater than that of dying from being hit by falling airplane parts when more people actually die from falling airplane parts.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Odds and ends - The San Diego Union-Tribune |url=http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20040222/news_mz1c22odds.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190325193349/http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20040222/news_mz1c22odds.html |archive-date=2019-03-25 |website=legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com}}</ref> When a shark attack occurs, the deaths are widely reported in the media whereas deaths as a result of being hit by falling airplane parts are rarely reported in the media.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Read |first=J.D. |year=1995 |title=The availability heuristic in person identification: The sometimes misleading consequences of enhanced contextual information |journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=91–121 |doi=10.1002/acp.2350090202}}</ref>

In a 2010 study exploring how vivid television portrayals are used when forming [[social reality]] judgments, people watching vivid violent media gave higher estimates of the prevalence of crime and police immorality in the real world than those not exposed to vivid television. These results suggest that [[Research on the effects of violence in mass media|television violence]] does in fact have a direct causal impact on participants' social reality beliefs. Repeated exposure to vivid violence leads to an increase in people's risk estimates about the prevalence of crime and violence in the real world.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Riddle |first=Karen |year=2010 |title=Always on My Mind: Exploring How Frequent, Recent, and Vivid Television Portrayals Are Used in the Formation of Social Reality Judgments |journal=Media Psychology |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=155–179 |doi=10.1080/15213261003800140 |s2cid=145074578}}</ref>  Counter to these findings, researchers from a similar study argued that these effects may be due to effects of new information. Researchers tested the new information effect by showing movies depicting dramatic risk events and measuring their risk assessment after the film. Contrary to previous research, there were no long-term effects on risk perception due to exposure to dramatic movies. However, the study did find evidence of idiosyncratic effects of the movies - that is, people reacted immediately after the movies with enhanced or diminished risk beliefs, which faded after a period of 10 days.<ref name="SjöbergEngelberg2010">{{Cite journal |last1=Sjöberg |first1=Lennart |last2=Engelberg |first2=Elisabeth |year=2010 |title=Risk Perception and Movies: A Study of Availability as a Factor in Risk Perception |journal=Risk Analysis |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=95–106 |doi=10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01335.x |issn=0272-4332 |pmid=20055978|bibcode=2010RiskA..30...95S |s2cid=10584667 }}</ref>

Another measurable effect is the inaccurate estimation of the fraction of deaths caused by terrorism compared to homicides with other causes.<ref>[https://tobiasrose.medium.com/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511488de This Is How Your Fear and Outrage Are Being Sold for Profit]</ref>

===Health===
Researchers examined the role of cognitive heuristics in the [[AIDS]] risk-assessment process. 331 physicians reported worry about on-the-job [[HIV]] exposure, and experience with patients who have HIV. By analyzing answers to questionnaires handed out, researchers concluded that availability of AIDS information did not relate strongly to [[perceived risk]].<ref name="HeathAcklin1991">{{Cite journal |last1=Heath |first1=Linda |last2=Acklin |first2=Marvin |last3=Wiley |first3=Katherine |year=1991 |title=Cognitive Heuristics and AIDS Risk Assessment Among Physicians |journal=Journal of Applied Social Psychology |volume=21 |issue=22 |pages=1859–1867 |doi=10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00509.x |issn=0021-9029}}</ref>

Participants in a 1992 study read case descriptions of hypothetical patients who varied on their sex and sexual preference. These hypothetical patients showed symptoms that could have been caused by five different diseases (AIDS, leukemia, influenza, meningitis, or appendicitis). Participants were instructed to indicate which disease they thought the patient had and then they rated patient responsibility and interaction desirability. Consistent with the availability heuristic, either the more common ([[influenza]]) or the more publicized (AIDS) disease was chosen.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Triplet |first=R.G |year=1992 |title=Discriminatory biases in the perception of illness: The application of availability and representativeness heuristics to the AIDS crisis |journal=Basic and Applied Social Psychology |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=303–322 |doi=10.1207/s15324834basp1303_3}}</ref>

===Business and economy===
One study sought to analyze the role of the availability heuristic in financial markets. Researchers defined and tested two aspects of the availability heuristic:<ref name="kliger">{{Cite journal |last1=Kliger |first1=Doron |last2=Kudryavtsev |first2=Andrey |year=2010 |title=The Availability Heuristic and Investors' Reaction to Company-Specific Events |journal=Journal of Behavioral Finance |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=50–65 |doi=10.1080/15427561003591116 |issn=1542-7560 |s2cid=154727453}}</ref>

* Outcome Availability&nbsp;– availability of positive and negative investment outcomes, and
* Risk Availability&nbsp;– availability of [[financial risk]].<ref name="kliger" />

On days of substantial [[stock market]] moves, abnormal stock price reactions to upgrades are weaker, than those to downgrades. These availability effects are still significant even after controlling for event-specific and company-specific factors.<ref name="kliger" />

Similarly, research has pointed out that under the availability heuristic, humans are not reliable because they assess probabilities by giving more weight to current or easily recalled information instead of processing all relevant information. Since information regarding the current state of the economy is readily available, researchers attempted to expose the properties of business cycles to predict the availability bias in analysts' growth forecasts. They showed the availability heuristic to play a role in analysis of forecasts and influence investments because of this.<ref name="LeeO">{{Cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Byunghwan |last2=O'Brien |first2=John |last3=Sivaramakrishnan |first3=K. |year=2008 |title=An Analysis of Financial Analysts' Optimism in Long-term Growth Forecasts |journal=Journal of Behavioral Finance |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=171–184 |doi=10.1080/15427560802341889 |issn=1542-7560 |s2cid=154169718}}</ref>

In effect, investors are using the availability heuristic to make decisions and subsequently, may be obstructing their own investment success. An investor's lingering perceptions of a dire market environment may be causing them to view investment opportunities through an overly negative lens, making it less appealing to consider taking on investment risk, no matter how small the returns on perceived "safe" investments.  To illustrate, [[Franklin Templeton]]'s annual Global Investor Sentiment Survey 1 asked individuals how they believed the [[S&P 500 Index]] performed in 2009, 2010, and 2011. 66 percent of respondents stated that they believed the market was either flat or down in 2009, 48 percent said the same about 2010 and 53 percent also said the same about 2011.  In reality, the S&P 500 saw 26.5 percent annual returns in 2009, 15.1 percent annual returns in 2010, and 2.1 percent annual returns in 2011, meaning lingering perceptions based on dramatic, painful events are impacting decision-making even when those events are over.<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 6, 2012 |title=Investors Should Beware The Role of 'Availability Bias' |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/the-availability-bias-is-driving-investor-decisions-2012-10 |access-date=December 1, 2013 |website=Business Insider}}</ref>

Additionally, a study by Hayibor and Wasieleski found that the availability of others who believe that a particular act is morally acceptable is positively related to others' perceptions of the morality of that act. This suggests that availability heuristic also has an effect on [[ethical]] [[decision making]] and ethical behavior in organizations.<ref name="HayiborWasieleski2008">{{Cite journal |last1=Hayibor |first1=Sefa |last2=Wasieleski |first2=David M. |year=2008 |title=Effects of the Use of the Availability Heuristic on Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=84 |issue=S1 |pages=151–165 |doi=10.1007/s10551-008-9690-7 |issn=0167-4544 |s2cid=144947312}}</ref>

===Education===
A study done by Craig R. Fox provides an example of how availability heuristics can work in the classroom. In this study, Fox tests whether the difficulty of recall influences judgment, specifically with course evaluations among college students.  In his study he had two groups complete a course evaluation form.  He asked the first group to write two recommended improvements for the course (a relatively easy task) and then write two positives about the class. The second group was asked to write ten suggestions where the professor could improve (a relatively difficult task) and then write two positive comments about the course.  At the end of the evaluation, both groups were asked to rate the course on a scale from one to seven.  The results showed that students asked to write ten suggestions (difficult task) rated the course less harshly because it was more difficult for them to recall the information. Most of the students in the group that was asked to fill in 10 suggestions didn't fill in more than two being unable to recall more instances where they were unsatisfied with the class. Students asked to do the easier evaluation with only two complaints had less difficulty in terms of availability of information, so they rated the course more harshly.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fox |first=Craig R. |year=2006 |title=The availability heuristic in the classroom: How soliciting more criticism can boost your course ratings |url=http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06020.pdf |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=86–90 |doi=10.1017/S1930297500000371 |s2cid=4466291 |issn=1930-2975}}</ref>

Another study by Marie Geurten sought to test the availability heuristic in young children. Children of varying ages (from 4 to 8 years old) were tasked with generating a list of names, with some being asked for a shorter list and some for a longer list. The study then assessed the children's own impressions of their ability to recall names. Those children who were tasked with generating a shorter list had a higher perception of their ability to recall names than those who were tasked with generating a longer list. According to the study, this suggests that the children based their assessment of their recall abilities on their subjective experience of ease of recall.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Geurten |first1=Marie |last2=Willems |first2=Sylvie |last3=Germain |first3=Sophie |last4=Meulemans |first4=Thierry |date=November 2015 |title=Less is more: The availability heuristic in early childhood |url=https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/186448 |journal=British Journal of Developmental Psychology |language=en |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=405–410 |doi=10.1111/bjdp.12114 |pmid=26332945 |hdl=2268/186448}}</ref>

===Criminal justice===
The media usually focuses on violent or extreme cases, which are more readily available in the public's mind. This may come into play when it is time for the judicial system to evaluate and determine the proper punishment for a crime. In one study, respondents rated how much they agreed with hypothetical laws and policies such as "Would you support a law that required all offenders convicted of unarmed muggings to serve a minimum prison term of two years?" Participants then read cases and rated each case on several questions about punishment. As hypothesized, respondents recalled more easily from [[long-term memory]] stories that contain severe harm, which seemed to influence their sentencing choices to make them push for harsher punishments. This can be eliminated by adding high concrete or high contextually distinct details into the crime stories about less severe injuries.<ref name="Stalans1993">{{Cite journal |last=Stalans |first=Loretta J. |year=1993 |title=Citizens' crime stereotypes, biased recall, and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. |journal=Law and Human Behavior |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=451–470 |doi=10.1007/BF01044378 |issn=1573-661X |s2cid=142611246}}</ref>

A similar study asked jurors and college students to choose sentences on four severe criminal cases in which prison was a possible but not an inevitable sentencing outcome. Respondents answering questions about court performance on a public opinion formulated a picture of what the courts do and then evaluated the appropriateness of that behavior. Respondents recalled public information about crime and sentencing. This type of information is incomplete because the news media present a highly selective and non-[[representative sample|representative]] selection of crime, focusing on the violent and extreme, rather than the ordinary. This makes most people think that judges are too lenient. But, when asked to choose the punishments, the sentences given by students were equal to or less severe than those given by judges. In other words, the availability heuristic made people believe that judges and jurors were too lenient in the courtroom, but the participants gave similar sentences when placed in the position of the judge, suggesting that the information they recalled was not correct.<ref name="DiamondStalans1989">{{Cite journal |last1=Diamond |first1=Shari Seidman |last2=Stalans |first2=Loretta J. |year=1989 |title=The myth of judicial leniency in sentencing |journal=Behavioral Sciences & the Law |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=73–89 |doi=10.1002/bsl.2370070106 |issn=0735-3936}}</ref>

Researchers in 1989 predicted that mock jurors would rate a witness to be ''more'' deceptive if the witness testified truthfully ''before'' lying than when the witness was caught lying first before telling the truth. If the availability heuristic played a role in this, lying second would remain in jurors' minds (since it was more recent) and they would most likely remember the witness lying over the truthfulness. To test the hypothesis, 312 university students played the roles of mock jurors and watched a videotape of a witness presenting testimony during a trial. Results confirmed the hypothesis, as mock jurors were most influenced by the most recent act.<ref name="deTurckTexter1989">{{Cite journal |last1=deTurck |first1=M. A. |last2=Texter |first2=L. A. |last3=Harszlak |first3=J. J. |year=1989 |title=Effects of Information Processing Objectives on Judgments of Deception Following Perjury |journal=Communication Research |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=434–452 |doi=10.1177/009365089016003006 |issn=0093-6502 |s2cid=145495112}}</ref>

===Perceived risk===
{{see|Perceived risk}}
Previous studies have indicated that explaining a hypothetical event makes the event seem more likely through the creation of causal connections. However, such effects could arise through the use of the availability heuristic; that is, subjective likelihood is increased by an event becoming easier to imagine.<ref name="Carroll1978">{{Cite journal |last=Carroll |first=John S. |year=1978 |title=The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic |journal=Journal of Experimental Social Psychology |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=88–96 |doi=10.1016/0022-1031(78)90062-8 |issn=0022-1031}}</ref>

A study done asked those participating to pick between two illnesses. Those doing the study wanted to know which disease they thought was more likely to cause death. In the study, they asked participants to choose between a stroke and asthma as to which one someone was more likely to die from. The researchers concluded that it depended on what experiences were available to them. If they knew someone or heard of someone that died from one of the diseases that is the one they perceived to be a higher risk to die from.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pachur |first1=Thorsten |last2=Hertwig |first2=Ralph |last3=Steinmann |first3=Florian |date=2012 |title=How do people judge risks: Availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? |journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied |language=en |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=314–330 |doi=10.1037/a0028279 |issn=1939-2192 |pmid=22564084 |hdl-access=free |hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-0024-F052-7}}</ref>

===Vividness effects===
Two studies with 108 undergraduates investigated vivid information and its impact on social judgment and the availability heuristic and its role in mediating vividness effects.

In study 1, Subjects listened to a tape recording that described a woman who lived with her 7-year-old son. Subjects then heard arguments about the woman's fitness as a parent and were asked to draw their own conclusions regarding her fitness or unfitness. The concrete and colorful language were found to influence judgments about the woman's fitness as a mother.

In study 2, a series of male and female names were presented to subjects; for each name, subjects were told the university affiliation of the individual (Yale or Stanford). When some names were presented, subjects were simultaneously shown a photograph that purportedly portrayed the named individual. Subsequently, to assess what subjects could remember (as a measure of availability), each name was represented, as well as the appropriate photograph if one had been originally presented. The study considered whether the display or non-display of photographs biased subjects' estimates as to the percentage of Yale (vs Stanford) students in the sample of men and women whose names appeared on the original list, and whether these estimated percentages were causally related to the respondents' memory for the college affiliations of the individual students on the list. The presence of photographs affected judgments about the proportion of male and female students at the two universities. Such effects have typically been attributed to the ready accessibility of vividly presented information in memory—that is, to the availability heuristic.

In both studies, vividness affected both availability (ability to recall) and judgments. However, causal modeling results indicated that the availability heuristic did not play a role in the judgment process.<ref name="ShedlerManis1986">{{Cite journal |last1=Shedler |first1=Jonathan |last2=Manis |first2=Melvin |year=1986 |title=Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects? |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=51 |issue=1 |pages=26–36 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.26 |issn=1939-1315}}</ref>

===Judging frequency and probability===
In general, availability is correlated with ecological frequency, but it is also affected by other factors. Consequently, the reliance on the availability heuristic leads to systematic biases. Such biases are demonstrated in the judged frequency of classes of words, of combinatoric outcomes, and of repeated events. The phenomenon of [[illusory correlation]] is explained as an availability bias.<ref name="tversky" />

In the original Tversky and Kahneman (1973) research, three major factors that are discussed are the frequency of repetition, frequency of co-occurrence, and illusory correlation. The use of frequency of repetition aids in the retrieval of relevant instances. The idea behind this phenomenon is that the more an instance is repeated within a category or list, the stronger the link between the two instances becomes. Individuals then use the strong association between the instances to determine the frequency of an instance. Consequently, the association between the category or list and the specific instance often influences frequency judgement. Frequency of co-occurrence strongly relates to Frequency of repetition, such that the more an item-pair is repeated, the stronger the association between the two items becomes, leading to a bias when estimating the frequency of co-occurrence. Due to the phenomena of frequency of co-occurrence, illusory correlations also often play a big role.<ref name="tversky" />

Another factor that affects the availability heuristic in frequency and probability is exemplars. Exemplars are the typical examples that stand out during the process of recall. If asked what participants thought different set sizes were (how many men and how many women are in the class), participants would use exemplars to determine the size of each set.  Participants would derive their answers on ease of recall of the names that stood out. Participants read a list of names of members of a class for 30 seconds, and then participants were asked the male to female ratio of the class. The participant's answer would depend on the recall of exemplars. If the participant reading the list recalled seeing more common male names, such as Jack, but the only female names in the class were uncommon names, such as Deepika, then the participant will recall that there were more men than women. The opposite would be true if there were more common female names on the list and uncommon male names. Due to the availability heuristic, names that are more easily available are more likely to be recalled, and can thus alter judgments of probability.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite journal |last1=Manis |first1=Melvin |last2=Jonides |first2=Jonathan |last3=Shedler |first3=John |last4=Nelson |first4=Thomas |date=1993 |title=Availability Heuristic in Judgments of Set Size and Frequency of Occurrence |journal=Journal of Personality & Social Psychology |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=448–457 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.65.3.448}}</ref>

Another example of the availability heuristic and exemplars would be seeing a shark in the ocean. Seeing a shark has a greater impact on an individual's memory than seeing a dolphin.  If someone sees both sharks and dolphins in the ocean, they will be less aware of seeing the dolphins, because the dolphins had less of an impact on their memory. Due to the greater impact of seeing a shark, the availability heuristic can influence the probability judgement of the ratio of sharks and dolphins in the water. Thus, an individual who saw both a shark and a dolphin would assume a higher ratio of sharks in the water, even if there are more dolphins in reality.<ref name="ReferenceA" />