Recency Effect

Have you tried to recall something, and the only thing you can remember is an occurrence that happened recently? The recency effect (known by multiple names such as the law of recency, the principle of recency, or recency error) occurs when the most recently presented facts or items are remembered easier. Recency effect bias correlates with decision-making and more information to compare recent events to the information learned. When in a rush to get somewhere, you'll likely take the route most familiar rather than searching to find one that could be a shorter distance of travel. You may do this to avoid the feeling of being tardy or avoiding boundaries that can get in the way. If you do this, you exemplify the recency effect.

 In a telephone survey (Mingay & Greenwell, 1989), they used the basis and study (Krosnick & Alwin, 1987). The study conducted by Krosnick and Alwin 

The survey was centered around response-order effects and memory biases. Still, it included how recency affects respondents based on their remembrance and how that applies to their decision-making. The closed survey by Mingay and Greenwell consisted of four health-related questions and how recency effects are part of different response-order effects. Throughout the study, they mention how they manipulated the interviewer's pace because it could be more controlled rather than affecting their memory performance.

Availability Bias

When a task or situation arises that needs an immediate decision, it may be hard to think of a response on the spot. The availability (heuristic) bias is the outcome when you quickly arrive at a conclusion or answer. Availability bias occurs when making decisions based on immediate information or when examples come to mind. If you're able to quickly think of multiple examples of something happening on the spot while deciding; as a result, what is first available on your mind (events or situations that have happened recently) will be the reason you make a decision. From this, you might judge that those events are more frequent or probable than others.

The term was first coined in 1973 by Nobel-prize-winning psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. They suggested that the availability heuristic occurs unconsciously and operates under the principle that "if you can think of it, it must be important." Melvin Aron Eisenberg speaks on Contract Laws in his review, The Limits of Cognition and the Limits of Contract. Within this research, he mentions the study of Tversky and Kahneman on the availability heuristic and provides an example of how the availability heuristic can apply to actors. Eisenberg states actors obtain data and imagine future scenarios and collect relevant data for making decisions.

For example, after seeing several news reports about thefts, you might make a judgment that theft is much more common in your area. The event is unusual to your surroundings can lead to false accusations that the event is much more common and can take on greater significance. Another highly common example could be when taking a multiple-choice exam. When it comes down to deciding on an answer, many say to stick with the first answer you have because it's more recent in your mind, but sometimes that's not always the best decision to make. You begin to second guess yourself because you were likely to see a familiar word somewhere but can't remember the association that came with it. Due to that, you make an immediate decision on which answer is more recent in your mind because it feels comfortable.

Anchoring Bias

Have you ever received information, and it stuck with you? Have you also relied on the first piece of information acquired and then used it as a baseline for comparison? This is known as the anchoring effect, a cognitive bias that influences you to rely too heavily on the first piece of information you receive. This effect affects us in many areas in money or things that can withhold a strong influence. What's a reasonable curfew for a 16-year-old? Many would think the hours between 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. is acceptable because 1 a.m. may seem too late. This is an example of the anchoring bias in which seeing constant information or comparing it to "all the kids are doing it." is enough information to stick with you and keep that decision. Harvard Law School states that in goal-setting research, scholars Deborah Zetik and Alice Stuhlmacher of DePaul University found negotiators will set something specific, creating challenges to see performance and consistency.

In a large-scale online survey, Fooling with facts, conducted by Taha Yasseri and Jannie Reher, they provide evidence that people's reliance on the information given can be irrational and provide a presence of the anchoring bias. Including considerations and studies by Tversky and Kahneman (1983) and Shah and Oppenheimer (2008), such as an estimate of the percentage of African countries in the United Nations and the length of the Mississippi river, this survey consisted of 62 questions and the subjects who answered were not recruited to the experiment and weren't aware that they were part of this experiment. The experiment used the mobile game, "Play the Future," in which players can predict famous brands and events for points and prizes. By manipulating numeric hints provided, it examined the influence of anchoring bias on the decisions made.

---

These cognitive biases introduce the relationship they have with decision-making.

Everyone's reasons and research for gaining information are different, but understanding yourself is valuable to understanding all cognitive biases. When dealing with everyday thoughts, deeds, words, and actions, we can be aware of how we decide things!