Cited by 143Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityClimate Change Communication and Perception

Cognitive bias and how to improve sustainable decision making

Open access
Korteling, Johan. E. (Hans), Paradies, Geerte L., Sassen-van Meer, Josephine P.·2023·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The rapid advances of science and technology have provided a large part of the world with all conceivable needs and comfort. However, this welfare comes with serious threats to the planet and many of its inhabitants. An enormous amount of scientific evidence points at global warming, mass destruction of bio-diversity, scarce resources, health risks, and pollution all over the world. These facts are generally acknowledged nowadays, not only by scientists, but also by the majority of politicians and citizens. Nevertheless, this understanding has caused insufficient changes in our decision making and behavior to preserve our natural resources and to prevent upcoming (natural) disasters. In the present study, we try to explain how systematic tendencies or distortions in human judgment and decision-making, known as “cognitive biases,” contribute to this situation. A large body of literature shows how cognitive biases affect the outcome of our deliberations. In natural and primordial situations, they may lead to quick, practical, and satisfying decisions, but these decisions may be poor and risky in a broad range of modern, complex, and long-term challenges, like climate change or pandemic prevention. We first briefly present the social-psychological characteristics that are inherent to (or typical for) most sustainability issues. These are: experiential vagueness, long-term effects, complexity and uncertainty, threat of the status quo, threat of social status, personal vs. community interest, and group pressure. For each of these characteristics, we describe how this relates to cognitive biases, from a neuro-evolutionary point of view, and how these evolved biases may affect sustainable choices or behaviors of people. Finally, based on this knowledge, we describe influence techniques (interventions, nudges, incentives) to mitigate or capitalize on these biases in order to foster more sustainable choices and behaviors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129835

Cites

127 of 127 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 131 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Adams B. D. Sartory J. Waldherr S. (2007). Military Influence Operations: Review of Relevant Scientific Literature. Report No. CR 2007-146. Toronto: Defence Research and Development Canada.
  2. Baron J. (1994). Thinking and Deciding. 2nd Edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Colman A. M. (2003). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
  4. Dawkins R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Diener E. Suh E. M. (2000). Culture and Subjective Wellbeing. Boston: MIT Press.
  6. Frank R. (1985). Choosing the Right Pond: Human and the Quest for Status. New York: Oxford University Press.
  7. Gardner G. Stern P. C. (2002). Environmental Problems and Human Behaviour. London: Pearson.
  8. Gigerenzer G. Todd P. M. and ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
  9. Hardin G. (1995). Living with limits: Ecology, economics, and population taboos. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  10. Klein G. (1998). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, Cambridge, MA, USA, MIT Press.
  11. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  12. Powel T. E. (2017). Multimodal News Framing Effects. Dissertation. Amsterdam, NL: University of Amsterdam.
  13. Sloman S. A. Fernbach P. (2018). The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone. Illinois: Penguin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Korteling, J. E. (., Paradies, G. L., & Sassen-van Meer, J. P.
Affiliations
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Korteling, Johan. E. (Hans)
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2023-02-28
Volume
14
Pages
1129835-1129835
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4322630742
Cited by
143
References
131
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 5
FWCI
29.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TNO Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
Keywords
cognitive biases, sustainable decision-making, sustainable behavior, climate change, pandemic prevention, long-term thinking, uncertainty, status quo bias, group pressure, nudging, incentives, behavioral interventions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review