Cognitive Biases

What are Cognitive Biases?

Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, where inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion. Individuals create their own "subjective reality" from their perception of the input.

‍

‍

‍

Key Takeaways

An individual's construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the social world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.

Although cognitive biases are a pervasive aspect of human cognition, they are not necessarily all maladaptive. They can be seen as a byproduct of the brain's attempt to simplify information processing.

They are often a result of the brain's limited information processing capacity and can be seen as mental shortcuts that usually get us where we need to go, but sometimes lead us astray. This phenomenon is well explained by dual process theory, which distinguishes between fast, automatic thinking and slower, more deliberate cognitive processes.

‍

‍

Here are three key points that summarize what cognitive biases are:

• Systematic Patterns of Deviation: These are not random errors but consistent patterns that occur in particular situations.
• Influence on Judgment and Decision-Making: Cognitive biases affect how we perceive and respond to the world around us, often leading to errors in judgment.
• Common Among All People: Everyone is susceptible to cognitive biases; they are a universal feature of human thought.

Throughout this article, we will delve into various biases, such as the self-serving bias, which describes our tendency to attribute successes to internal factors and failures to external ones, and the actor-observer bias, where we tend to attribute other people's actions to their character but our own actions to our circumstances.

‍

‍

We will also explore how these biases influence our view of rationality and how common biases can lead to a blind spot in our own self-awareness. From the fundamental attribution error outlined in social psychology to the insights from positive psychology on optimism bias, we'll provide a deeper understanding of these concepts, informed by sources like the APA Dictionary of Psychology and experimental social psychology research.

‍

‍

‍

Who Discovered Cognitive Biases?

Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky pioneered the study of cognitive biases in the 1970s through their groundbreaking research on judgment and decision-making. Their work revealed that humans consistently make predictable errors in thinking, which earned Kahneman the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002. This research fundamentally changed how we understand human rationality and decision-making processes.

Cognitive biases were first identified and studied by a number of influential psychologists, each of whom made significant contributions to the field. This list showcases key researchers from the field of cognitive biases, each contributing a building block to our current understanding of the topic.

As the article progresses, we will delve deeper into each bias, exploring its origins, implications, and real-world applications, solidifying the reader's comprehension of this complex field.

1. Peter Wason (1924-2003): A cognitive psychologist at University College London, Wason was instrumental in identifying various logical fallacies and cognitive biases, notably the confirmation bias through his eponymous Wason selection task. His research in the 1960s demonstrated the human tendency to seek information that confirms pre-existing beliefs.

2. Robert H. Thouless (1894-1984): Thouless contributed to the early exploration of cognitive biases with his work on wishful thinking and the distortion of evidence. He was a psychologist at Cambridge University Press, and his research in the 1950s delved into the psychology of judgment and decision-making.

3. Amos Tversky (1937-1996) & Daniel Kahneman (b. 1934): Tversky and Kahneman, through their work published by Oxford University Press and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, revolutionized the understanding of human judgment. In the 1970s, they developed prospect theory and uncovered heuristics such as the availability and representativeness biases, fundamentally shaping the field of cognitive science.

4. Gerd Gigerenzer (b. 1947): Gigerenzer's research focuses on the role of heuristics in decision-making. He has contributed to the understanding of how people make decisions under uncertainty and is known for his critique of the work of Kahneman and Tversky, emphasizing the adaptive nature of heuristics.

5. Daniel L. Schacter (b. 1952): Schacter's work at Harvard University has been pivotal in exploring memory biases, especially false memories. His research in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience has shed light on the mechanisms of memory distortion and their implications for cognitive biases.

6. Keith E. Stanovich (b. 1950): Stanovich's work on the Rationality Quotient has been significant in understanding cognitive biases. His research investigates the discrepancy between normative and descriptive models of decision-making, highlighting the influence of cognitive biases on rational thought processes.

7. Daniel M. Wegner (1948-2013): Wegner, a professor at Harvard, introduced the theory of ironic processes of mental control. His research suggests that attempts to suppress certain thoughts make them more likely to surface, contributing to a better understanding of counterintuitive biases in thought suppression.

8. Kahneman D & Tversky A: Beyond their individual contributions, Kahneman and Tversky's collaboration produced some of the most influential papers in the field of cognitive biases, such as their work on the framing effect and loss aversion, which has influenced disciplines ranging from economics to health care.

9. Caryn L. Morewedge (b. 20th Century) & Daniel T. Gilbert (b. 1957): Their work has advanced the understanding of biases in affective forecasting, demonstrating how people's predictions about their emotional reactions to future events are often inaccurate.

10. Marinus H. van IJzendoorn & Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg: This duo has contributed to understanding the interplay between attachment styles and cognitive biases, showing how early life experiences can influence the processing of social information and decision-making.

‍

‍

‍

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's Contributions

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky made significant contributions to the study of cognitive biases by focusing on heuristics and biases in decision making. Their research had a substantial impact on behavioral economics, shedding light on the ways in which individuals often deviate from rational decision-making models.

Key findings from their research include the identification of various cognitive biases, such as the availability heuristic and the representativeness heuristic. The availability heuristic refers to the tendency to rely on examples that come to mind easily when making decisions, often leading to overestimation of the likelihood of certain events.

The representativeness heuristic involves making judgments based on how similar something is to a typical case, which can lead to errors in decision making.

Their work has shaped the understanding of cognitive biases by demonstrating the ways in which individuals consistently make irrational decisions due to the use of heuristics. This has implications for fields such as marketing, finance, and public policy, as understanding and addressing these biases is crucial for influencing consumer behavior and improving decision making. In summary, Kahneman and Tversky's research has made a lasting impact on the study of cognitive biases and decision making processes.

‍

‍

Anderson's Research on Cognitive Biases

One of the most influential studies in the field of cognitive psychology was conducted by John Anderson in the late 1970s. Anderson's groundbreaking research focused on memory and information processing, and his key findings revolutionized our understanding of the human mind.

His methodology involved designing computer models to simulate human cognition and behavior, allowing him to uncover the underlying processes involved in learning and memory.

Anderson's research revealed that memory is not a single, unified system, but rather a combination of separate components that work together to encode, store, and retrieve information. This insight significantly contributed to our understanding of how we learn and remember, and it laid the groundwork for subsequent research in cognitive psychology.

Anderson's work has shaped current understanding by highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of memory and cognition, and it continues to influence the development of theories and models in the field. His contributions have had a lasting impact on our understanding of human cognition and have paved the way for further advancements in the study of memory and learning processes.

‍

‍

‍

What Are Systematic Errors in Human Judgment?

Systematic errors are consistent, predictable mistakes that occur when people make judgments or decisions under certain conditions. Unlike random errors, these follow specific patterns such as overconfidence bias, anchoring bias, or confirmation bias. These errors happen because our brains use mental shortcuts (heuristics) to process complex information quickly.

Systematic errors in judgment and decision-making can arise from cognitive biases, affecting the integration of critical data in defining a clinical candidate. Overconfidence, poor calibration of judgments, availability bias, and excess focus on certainty can all impact drug discovery decision-making.

Overconfidence can lead to ignoring or underestimating risks, while poor calibration of judgments can result in inconsistent and unreliable decision-making. Availability bias can cause decision-makers to rely too heavily on readily available information, rather than considering a broad range of data. Excess focus on certainty can lead to a reluctance to consider alternative perspectives or options.

In drug discovery projects, potential bias can arise from arbitrary cut-offs or overreliance on individual parameters, limiting the coverage of parameter space. This can result in overlooking potentially valuable candidates or dismissing promising leads prematurely.

It is important for decision-makers to be aware of these biases and work to mitigate their impact on the evaluation and selection of clinical candidates. Awareness of cognitive biases and their effects on decision-making is crucial for ensuring thorough and effective drug discovery processes.

‍

‍

‍

How Do Cognitive Biases Affect Daily Decision Making?

Cognitive biases influence everyday decisions by causing us to misinterpret information, make poor financial choices, or misjudge social situations. For example, confirmation bias leads people to seek information that supports their existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence. These biases affect everything from shopping habits to relationship decisions and workplace judgments.

Cognitive biases subtly shape our daily choices, problem-solving capabilities, and behaviors. Grasping the influence of cognitive biases is vital for identifying their role in our thought processes and actions, which in turn aids in crafting strategies to counteract their less desirable effects.

Influences on Decision-Making

Cognitive biases often disrupt our ability to make decisions rooted in logic and full information. Take confirmation bias, for instance; it may lead someone to cherry-pick data that supports their pre-existing views, disregarding information that doesn't. Such tendencies can result in poorly informed decisions that may not align with one's actual best interests or overlook valuable differing viewpoints.

Impact on Problem-Solving

When it comes to solving problems, cognitive biases can equally steer us astray. Biases like anchoring or the availability heuristic might cause us to overemphasize initial information or readily recalled instances, bypassing a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant data. Consequently, we may settle on solutions that are less than ideal, stifling creativity and the potential for innovative breakthroughs.

Behavioral Outcomes

Cognitive biases can also dictate our behavior, often leading us towards choices that may not serve us well. An overconfidence bias, for example, might embolden someone to assume greater risks than is sensible, whereas a negativity bias can result in an undue focus on the adverse, culminating in a bleak worldview.

In sum, cognitive biases have a broad spectrum of effects on our daily existence, swaying our decision-making, problem-solving, and overall behavior. Awareness and acknowledgment of these biases are critical for making more informed, rational choices and successfully maneuvering through the intricacies of everyday life.

‍

‍

‍

‍

What Are the Most Common Types of Cognitive Biases?

The most common cognitive biases include confirmation bias (seeking supporting evidence), availability heuristic (overestimating likelihood based on recent examples), and anchoring bias (over-relying on first information received). Other prevalent biases are the Dunning-Kruger effect (overconfidence in limited knowledge) and hindsight bias (believing past events were predictable). These biases affect virtually everyone and influence decisions across all areas of life.

As we have noted, Cognitive biases often act like unseen forces guiding our judgments and decisions. Here are ten of the most common ones:

1. Confirmation Bias: This is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs. It manifests in giving more weight to evidence that supports our beliefs and discounting evidence that contradicts them.
2. Anchoring Bias: This occurs when individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information they receive. In negotiations, for instance, the first price set acts as an anchor with all subsequent counteroffers revolving around it.
3. Hindsight Bias: Also known as the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, this bias leads people to believe, after an event has occurred, that they had foreseen it, which can hinder learning from past experiences.
4. Availability Heuristic: This is the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events based on their availability in memory. If something can be recalled easily, it is seen as more common or likely than it actually is.
5. Dunning-Kruger Effect: This bias leads individuals with low ability at a task to overestimate their ability. It manifests as overconfidence in one's own knowledge and capabilities.
6. Self-serving Bias: This bias involves attributing positive events to one's own character but attributing negative events to external factors. It's evident when someone takes credit for successes but blames failures on outside circumstances.
7. Actor-Observer Bias: This is the tendency to attribute one’s own actions to external causes while attributing other people's actions to their character. It often manifests in social situations where we judge others more harshly than ourselves.
8. Optimism Bias: This bias leads people to believe that they are less likely to experience a negative event compared to others. It can manifest in under-preparing for potential risks.
9. Fundamental Attribution Error: This is the tendency to overemphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while underemphasizing situational explanations. In practice, it's blaming others' faults on their character rather than the situation.
10. Status Quo Bias: This is a preference for the current state of affairs. The current baseline is taken as a reference point, and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss. It manifests in resistance to change and the preference for things to stay the same.

Understanding these biases can help us reflect on our decision-making processes and strive for more balanced and objective evaluations in our personal and professional lives.

‍

‍

‍

‍

How Does Behavioral Economics Explain Cognitive Biases?

Behavioral economics demonstrates that people systematically deviate from rational decision-making due to cognitive biases, challenging traditional economic theories. This field shows how biases like loss aversion (fearing losses more than valuing gains) and present bias (overvaluing immediate rewards) affect financial decisions. These insights have revolutionized understanding of consumer behavior, investment choices, and policy design.

Insights from behavioral economics provide a unique perspective on the ways individuals make decisions, interact with each other, and respond to incentives. This interdisciplinary field combines insights from psychology and economics to understand why people sometimes make irrational choices.

By examining real-world behaviors and decision-making processes, behavioral economics offers valuable insights that can inform public policy, marketing strategies, and financial decision-making.

Understanding the biases and heuristics that drive human behavior can help to predict and influence economic outcomes in ways that traditional economic models cannot. This innovative approach to economics has gained increasing prominence in recent years, as policymakers and businesses seek to better understand and influence individual behavior.

‍

‍

Cognitive biases in Economic Theories and Models

Cognitive biases play a significant role in shaping economic theories and models. For example, the availability heuristic leads individuals to make decisions based on readily available information, often resulting in overestimating the likelihood of certain events.

This can impact financial decision-making, such as investing in stocks based on recent news rather than a thorough analysis of market trends. Additionally, confirmation bias can lead individuals to seek out information that supports their existing beliefs, potentially leading to skewed economic data and flawed models.

These biases have implications for economic predictions and the development of economic policies. For instance, overconfidence bias can lead to overly optimistic economic forecasts, which in turn can influence policy decisions. Furthermore, anchoring bias can cause policymakers to rely too heavily on initial, possibly irrelevant, information, leading to misguided economic policies.

By recognizing the impact of these biases on economic decision-making, we can improve our understanding of economic behavior and enhance the effectiveness of economic policies.

‍

‍

‍

What Are Real-World Examples of Cognitive Biases?

Real-world examples include the halo effect where teachers rate attractive students as smarter, or the sunk cost fallacy where people continue bad investments because they've already spent money. In classrooms, attribution bias causes teachers to attribute student success to ability but failure to lack of effort. Medical professionals experience anchoring bias when initial diagnoses influence subsequent interpretations of symptoms.

In the workplace, cognitive biases can lead to poor decisions and a deviation from norm, often without individuals realizing the influence these biases have. Here are five fictional examples illustrating this point:

1. Confirmation Bias: John, a manager, only acknowledges quarterly reports that show positive outcomes, aligning with his belief that his team outperforms all others. This bias towards confirming his existing beliefs leads to a blind spot; he overlooks areas needing improvement, culminating in missed opportunities for development and a false sense of security.
2. Anchoring Bias: During salary negotiations, Hannah, an HR specialist, suggests a starting number based on the first application she reviewed rather than market rates. This initial anchor skews her judgment under uncertainty, resulting in salary offers that are not competitive, which could lead to a loss of potential talent.
3. Dunning-Kruger Effect: Alex, a new team lead, overestimates his project management skills. His lack of experience, masked by overconfidence, leads to rational people making irrational choices, as his team follows his lead, causing project delays and budget overruns due to his sins of memory and inexperience.
4. Groupthink: In the marketing department, Sofia notices that her team tends to agree with ideas proposed by dominant personalities without critical evaluation. This tendency for people to conform leads to a lack of creativity and innovation, as the fear of dissent prevents new, possibly more effective strategies from being proposed.
5. Status Quo Bias: Liam, the IT director, prefers to maintain legacy systems over upgrading to more efficient technologies. His adherence to functional fixedness and discomfort with change result in the company falling behind on tech trends, leading to inefficiencies and the potential for security vulnerabilities.

These examples show how cognitive biases can surreptitiously influence human decision-making, leading to negative effects that ripple through the workplace. By being bias blind, companies risk stagnation and the inability to adapt, highlighting the importance of recognizing and mitigating biases in professional environments.

‍

‍

How Does Cognitive Flexibility Reduce Bias?

Cognitive flexibility helps reduce biases by enabling people to switch between different perspectives and consider alternative explanations for events. This mental agility allows individuals to recognize when they're falling into biased thinking patterns and actively seek different viewpoints. Regular practice of perspective-taking and challenging initial assumptions strengthens cognitive flexibility over time.

Cognitive flexibility is the ability to adapt one's thinking in response to changing circumstances and to shift attention between different tasks or trains of thought. This mental skill helps individuals to approach problems from different perspectives, consider alternative solutions, and be open to new ideas.

Cognitive flexibility plays a crucial role in overcoming biases by allowing individuals to challenge their own preconceptions and be more open-minded in their reasoning and decision-making.

By understanding how cognitive flexibility serves as an antidote to biases, we can explore the ways in which this cognitive skill can help us to think more critically and make more informed judgments in our daily lives.

‍

‍

What Strategies Help Overcome Cognitive Biases?

Effective strategies include slowing down decision-making processes, actively seeking contradictory evidence, and using structured decision-making frameworks. Creating diverse teams and encouraging devil's advocate positions helps counter groupthink and confirmation bias. Regular bias awareness training and reflection on past decisions also builds recognition of personal bias patterns.

Being open-minded and adaptable is crucial in overcoming cognitive biases. By acknowledging the presence of biases, seeking diverse perspectives and experiences, and practicing cognitive flexibility, individuals can better understand and address their own cognitive biases.

Open-mindedness allows for the consideration of different viewpoints, while adaptability enables the integration of new information and the re-evaluation of previously held beliefs.

In understanding and addressing cognitive biases, being open-minded and adaptable also involves being cautious and assertive in facilitating conversations with others. This means being receptive to alternative perspectives while also confidently challenging and questioning one's own and others' biases. By actively engaging in assertive communication, individuals can create an environment where cognitive biases are openly discussed and critically examined.

By fostering open-mindedness and adaptability, individuals can better combat cognitive biases and enhance decision-making processes by valuing diversity of thought and experiences. This allows for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to problem-solving and decision-making.

‍

‍

Strategies for Promoting Cognitive Flexibility

Addressing cognitive biases requires conscious effort and reflective thinking. Here’s a practical guide to overcoming some of the most common cognitive biases, which can often lead to errors in judgment and decision-making.

1. Anchoring Bias: Combat this by seeking multiple perspectives before making a decision. Don't rely on the first piece of information; instead, set a preliminary range based on various sources and adjust your estimates or expectations as new information becomes available.
2. Confirmation Bias: Deliberately look for information that contradicts your beliefs. This can be achieved by playing devil's advocate or seeking peer reviews that challenge your assumptions, which can help in fostering a more balanced view.
3. Bandwagon Effect: Cultivate critical thinking by evaluating the evidence behind prevailing trends. Encourage diversity of thought in group settings to ensure a range of opinions are considered, reducing the likelihood of conformity.
4. Hindsight Bias: Keep a record of your decisions and the reasons behind them. This 'decision journal' can be reviewed to assess the accuracy of your predictions, helping to counteract the "I knew it all along" fallacy.
5. Sunk Cost Fallacy: Make future-oriented decisions. Regularly remind yourself that past investments cannot be recovered and should not dictate current choices if they no longer align with your goals or values.
6. Halo Effect: Evaluate people and situations based on specific evidence, not general impressions. Use objective criteria to assess performance, reducing the influence of overall impressions on specific judgments.
7. Dunning-Kruger Effect: Seek continuous feedback and education. Acknowledge the limits of your knowledge and skills, which can help in maintaining a realistic assessment of your competencies.
8. Availability Heuristic: Base judgments on data and statistics, not anecdotal evidence. This can be done by consulting research or relying on objective indicators rather than subjective personal experiences.
9. Status Quo Bias: Regularly challenge existing norms and processes by asking whether they still serve their intended purpose. Encourage innovation by rewarding risk-taking and new ideas, even if they deviate from the norm.

By actively engaging with these strategies, individuals can begin to counteract the thinking errors that cognitive biases present, leading to more rational and effective decision-making.

‍

‍

What Are the Best Resources to Learn About Cognitive Biases?

Essential reading includes Daniel Kahneman's 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' which explains dual-process theory and major biases, and 'Predictably Irrational' by Dan Ariely which demonstrates biases through engaging experiments. For educators, 'The Art of Thinking Clearly' by Rolf Dobelli provides practical examples of 99 cognitive errors. Academic readers should explore the original papers by Tversky and Kahneman in journals like Science and Psychological Review.

These studies provide insights into how cognitive biases impact decision-making, perception, and emotion, contributing to our understanding of human and animal psychology.

1. Harding, Paul, & Mendl (2004) found that rats housed in unpredictable conditions exhibit a 'pessimistic' cognitive bias similar to negative judgement biases seen in anxious or depressed humans. This suggests cognitive bias can indicate affective states in animals, aiding in welfare studies.

2. Hallion & Ruscio (2011) conducted a meta-analysis on Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) for anxiety and depression, finding CBM has a medium effect on biases and a small effect on symptoms. The results support cognitive theories of anxiety and depression, suggesting biases' interactive effect with stressors on symptoms.

3. Haselton & Buss (2000) introduced Error Management Theory (EMT), explaining cognitive biases as designed for asymmetrical costs of errors over evolutionary history. Their studies show men overperceive sexual intent, and women underestimate commitment, illustrating how biases can influence social inferences. 

4. Curley, Munro, & Lages (2020) emphasize the need for rigorous, ecologically valid research to understand cognitive biases in forensic decisions. They argue for prioritizing assessment of bias prevalence, impact, and type to maintain trust in the justice system.

5. Stanovich & West (2008) found numerous thinking biases uncorrelated with cognitive ability, challenging the assumption that biases are due to lack of intelligence. They suggest that biases like the conjunction effect, framing effects, and myside bias are part of rational thinking under resource constraints.

‍

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

What are cognitive biases and why should educators care about understanding them?

Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from rational thinking that affect how we make judgements and decisions. For educators, understanding these biases is crucial because they explain why bright pupils sometimes make illogical choices and help teachers recognise how their own biases influence assessment and behaviour management. This knowledge transforms how you interpret pupil responses, from test anxiety to peer conflicts, moving beyond traditional explanations.

‍

‍

How do cognitive biases affect pupil behaviour and decision-making in the classroom?

Cognitive biases create a 'subjective reality' for pupils where their perception of situations, rather than objective facts, dictates their behaviour. This means pupils may make decisions that seem irrational but are actually predictable patterns based on mental shortcuts their brains use to process information. Understanding this helps explain why traditional behaviour strategies sometimes fail and reveals what approaches actually work instead.

‍

‍

What is the 'bias blind spot' and how does it impact teachers' professional practice?

The bias blind spot refers to how educators' own cognitive biases unconsciously influence their teaching decisions, particularly in assessment and behaviour management. This can lead to certain pupils seeming more challenging simply because of the teacher's biased perceptions rather than the pupil's actual behaviour. Recognising this blind spot is essential for fair and effective teaching practice.

‍

‍

Can you provide practical examples of common cognitive biases that occur in educational settings?

Self-serving bias leads pupils to attribute their successes to their own abilities but blame failures on external factors like 'unfair tests'. Actor-observer bias causes teachers to attribute a pupil's poor behaviour to their character whilst attributing their own mistakes to circumstances. Confirmation bias makes both teachers and pupils seek information that supports their existing beliefs about academic ability or behaviour expectations.

‍

‍

How can understanding dual process theory help teachers improve their classroom practice?

Dual process theory explains that we use both fast, automatic thinking and slower, more deliberate cognitive processes. Teachers can use this knowledge to recognise when pupils are relying on mental shortcuts that lead to errors, and deliberately encourage slower, more careful thinking for important decisions. This approach helps pupils develop better judgement and reduces the impact of cognitive biases on their learning.

‍

‍

Are cognitive biases always harmful, or can they sometimes be beneficial in educational contexts?

Cognitive biases are not necessarily maladaptive and can be seen as the brain's attempt to simplify information processing when faced with limited capacity. These mental shortcuts usually help us function efficiently and often get us where we need to go, though they sometimes lead us astray. In education, understanding this helps teachers work with, rather than against, natural thinking patterns whilst teaching pupils when to slow down and think more carefully.

‍

‍

What revolutionary insights from Kahneman and Tversky's research can transform classroom behaviour management?

Kahneman and Tversky's research revealed that humans consistently make predictable errors in thinking, which explains why traditional behaviour strategies often fail. Their findings show that pupils' decisions are influenced by systematic biases rather than pure logic or defiance. This knowledge allows teachers to design more effective interventions that account for how pupils actually think and make decisions, rather than how we assume they should think.

‍

‍