Your Brain Is Not Your Friend
In 2008, a seasoned portfolio manager at a major Wall Street firm watched his fund’s largest position — a banking stock he had held for seven years — drop 40% in three weeks. He had every piece of data suggesting the financial system was cracking. His risk models were screaming. His analysts were begging him to cut the position. He didn’t sell a single share. Why? Because the stock was still above the price he had originally paid, and in his mind, that meant he “hadn’t lost anything yet.”
By the time he finally sold, the stock was down 85%.
This isn’t a story about a bad investor. This is a story about a human investor. The manager in question had an MBA from Wharton, two decades of experience, and a team of brilliant analysts. None of that mattered, because the enemy wasn’t in the market — it was in his own head.
Behavioral finance has spent the last fifty years documenting a disturbing truth: the human brain comes pre-loaded with cognitive shortcuts that served us well on the African savanna but are catastrophically bad at managing money. These aren’t minor quirks. Studies estimate that behavioral biases cost the average investor between 1.5% and 4% in annual returns. Over a 30-year investing career, that difference can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars — sometimes millions — left on the table.
The good news? Unlike market risk, which you can’t control, thinking errors are something you can fix. But only if you know what to look for.
In this guide, we’ll walk through the ten most common cognitive biases that sabotage stock investors. For each one, we’ll cover what it is, how it shows up in your investing decisions, what it costs you, and — most importantly — how to defend against it. By the end, you’ll have a practical mental toolkit that can genuinely improve your long-term returns.
Let’s start with the most pervasive bias of all.
Anchoring Bias — The Price You Paid Is Irrelevant
What It Is
Anchoring is the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information you encounter when making decisions. Once an “anchor” is set in your mind, all subsequent judgments are unconsciously adjusted relative to that anchor — even when the anchor is completely arbitrary.
The classic experiment comes from psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. They spun a rigged roulette wheel in front of participants, then asked them to estimate the percentage of African countries in the United Nations. People who saw the wheel land on 65 guessed an average of 45%. People who saw it land on 10 guessed an average of 25%. A random number from a roulette wheel had a measurable influence on their answers to a factual question.
How It Shows Up in Investing
The most dangerous anchor in investing is your purchase price. The moment you buy a stock at $100, that number becomes your reference point for every future decision about that stock. If the stock drops to $70, you feel like you’re “losing” $30 — even though the stock has no idea what you paid for it and doesn’t care.
This shows up in several destructive patterns:
- Refusing to sell a losing position because it hasn’t recovered to your purchase price, even though the fundamentals have deteriorated.
- Selling a winner too early because it’s “up a lot” from where you bought it, even though the business is stronger than ever.
- Waiting for a stock to come back to a previous high before buying, even though that high was reached during different market conditions.
- Anchoring to analyst price targets, which are themselves often anchored to recent prices rather than independent analysis.
What It Costs You
Anchoring is particularly expensive because it distorts both sides of the buy/sell equation. You hold losers too long (because you’re anchored to your purchase price) and sell winners too soon (because the gain from your anchor feels “enough”). Research by Terrance Odean at UC Berkeley found that individual investors are 50% more likely to sell a winning stock than a losing one — the exact opposite of what rational profit-maximizing behavior would suggest.
Availability Heuristic — Why Headlines Destroy Portfolios
What It Is
The availability heuristic is the tendency to judge the probability of events based on how easily examples come to mind. If something is vivid, recent, or emotionally charged, we overestimate how likely it is. If something is abstract, distant, or boring, we underestimate it.
This is why people are more afraid of shark attacks than car accidents, even though you’re roughly 1,000 times more likely to die in a car crash. Shark attacks are vivid and dramatic. Car accidents are routine.
How It Shows Up in Investing
Financial media is a machine specifically designed to exploit the availability heuristic. Every day, you’re bombarded with:
- Dramatic crash narratives that make market collapses feel imminent, even though the S&P 500 has returned roughly 10% annually over the last century through every war, pandemic, and financial crisis.
- Success stories of individual stock picks — the person who bought Tesla at $20 or Nvidia before the AI boom — while the millions of failed stock picks never make the news.
- Sector hype cycles where a single breakthrough (say, a new AI model) makes an entire sector feel like a guaranteed winner, because recent news about that sector is flooding your attention.
- Recency bias — a close cousin — where investors overweight the last few months of market performance when planning for the next 30 years.
After the 2008 financial crisis, millions of investors pulled their money out of stocks and sat in cash or bonds for years, missing one of the greatest bull runs in history. The crash was so vivid and emotionally available that it overwhelmed all statistical evidence showing that post-crash recoveries are both common and powerful.
What It Costs You
DALBAR’s annual studies consistently show that the average equity fund investor underperforms the S&P 500 by 3-4% per year over 20-year periods. The primary reason? Emotional buying and selling driven by whatever narrative is most “available” at the moment — piling in during euphoria and panic-selling during crashes.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect — When Early Wins Breed Dangerous Confidence
What It Is
The Dunning-Kruger effect describes the tendency of people with limited knowledge or skill in a domain to dramatically overestimate their own competence. Meanwhile, true experts tend to underestimate theirs. It’s a cognitive bias about metacognition — our ability to accurately assess our own abilities.
The original 1999 study by David Dunning and Justin Kruger found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of logic, grammar, and humor estimated their performance to be in the 62nd percentile. They didn’t just fail to recognize their incompetence — they were confident they were above average.
How It Shows Up in Investing
This bias is especially dangerous in investing because bull markets reward everyone regardless of skill. When the market is rising 20-30% per year (as it did in 2023 and 2024), nearly every stock picker feels like a genius. Their stocks are going up, their account balance is growing, and they develop an increasingly firm belief that they have a genuine edge.
The typical progression looks like this:
- Beginner’s luck: A new investor buys a few stocks during a bull market. They go up. The investor concludes they’re good at this.
- Escalation: Encouraged by early success, they start trading more frequently, concentrating in fewer positions, and maybe adding leverage or options.
- Overconfidence peak: They begin giving stock tips to friends, dismissing professional fund managers as overpaid and underperforming, and perhaps even considering quitting their day job to trade full-time.
- Reality check: A market correction arrives. Their concentrated, leveraged positions get destroyed. They lose months or years of gains in weeks.
The cruelest aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect in investing is that the market provides intermittent reinforcement. Even bad strategies work sometimes, which makes it incredibly difficult to distinguish skill from luck.
What It Costs You
Overconfident investors trade more frequently, which incurs higher transaction costs and tax bills. Brad Barber and Terrance Odean’s landmark study of 66,000 brokerage accounts found that the most active traders earned annual returns of 11.4%, while the market returned 17.9% over the same period. The most confident investors literally traded away more than a third of their potential returns.
Narrative Fallacy — The Stories We Tell Ourselves About Stocks
What It Is
The narrative fallacy, coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, is our compulsion to create coherent stories to explain events that may be random or driven by factors we don’t understand. Humans are storytelling animals. We need things to make sense. When they don’t, we invent reasons until they do.
The problem is that a compelling narrative feels indistinguishable from a correct explanation. A good story activates the same brain regions as genuine understanding, giving us a false sense of knowledge.
How It Shows Up in Investing
The stock market is a perfect breeding ground for narrative fallacy because stock prices move constantly and human beings cannot tolerate unexplained movement. Consider this sequence:
A stock drops 8% on a Tuesday. Within hours, financial media produces explanations: “Stock XYZ falls on concerns about slowing consumer spending.” The next day, the stock recovers 6%. New headline: “Stock XYZ rebounds on renewed optimism about holiday sales.” In reality, the stock may have moved because a large institutional investor rebalanced its portfolio, or because an algorithm triggered a sell cascade, or for a dozen other reasons that have nothing to do with consumer spending.
But the narrative is now set, and investors act on it. They sell because “consumer spending is slowing” or buy because “holiday optimism is returning” — making decisions based on stories that were invented after the fact to explain random noise.
Other common manifestations include:
- Company mythology: Building an investment thesis around a CEO’s “visionary” reputation rather than financial metrics. The story of the genius founder becomes the reason to hold, even when the numbers deteriorate.
- Sector narratives: “AI will change everything” or “Clean energy is the future” become reasons to buy stocks at any price, because the story is so compelling that valuation seems irrelevant.
- Post-hoc rationalization: After a stock you own drops, constructing elaborate stories about why it’s “temporary” and the “real value” will eventually be recognized — when the simpler explanation might be that you made a bad investment.
What It Costs You
Narrative-driven investing leads to overpaying for stocks with good stories and ignoring stocks with good numbers but boring narratives. Research by Aswath Damodaran at NYU has shown that “story stocks” — companies with compelling narratives but weak financials — consistently underperform “boring” companies with strong balance sheets and steady cash flows over 10-year periods.
Hindsight Bias — “I Knew It All Along”
What It Is
Hindsight bias is the tendency to believe, after an event has occurred, that you predicted it or that it was obvious all along. It’s sometimes called the “knew-it-all-along” effect. Once you know the outcome, your brain rewrites history so that the outcome seems inevitable — even if you had no idea it was coming.
This isn’t just faulty memory. Brain imaging studies show that learning an outcome physically changes how we recall our prior predictions. Your brain literally overwrites the old memory with a new, revised version that aligns with what actually happened.
How It Shows Up in Investing
Hindsight bias is perhaps the most socially destructive investing bias because it’s the one people most loudly broadcast to others. Everyone has a friend who “knew” crypto was going to crash, who “saw” the 2022 tech selloff coming, who “totally called” the AI rally. In reality, they may have had a vague sense that something might happen, but their confidence about the prediction has been dramatically inflated by the outcome.
The real damage of hindsight bias isn’t social annoyance — it’s the way it distorts your learning process:
- It prevents you from learning from mistakes. If you convince yourself that a bad outcome was unforeseeable, you won’t analyze what went wrong. If you convince yourself a good outcome was obviously predictable, you won’t question whether you were just lucky.
- It breeds false confidence. Each time you “remember” having predicted an outcome correctly, your confidence in your predictive ability grows — even though the “prediction” was manufactured after the fact.
- It warps risk assessment. Events that were actually low-probability start feeling like they were inevitable, which distorts how you assess similar situations in the future.
What It Costs You
Hindsight bias makes investors take excessive risk because they believe they can predict outcomes that are inherently unpredictable. It also makes them ignore diversification — “Why diversify when I can just pick the winners?” — leading to concentrated portfolios that are one bad call away from serious losses.
Gambler’s Fallacy — The Myth of Stocks Being “Due”
What It Is
The gambler’s fallacy is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). A roulette player who has seen red come up 10 times in a row becomes convinced that black is “due” — even though each spin is independent and the odds are always the same.
How It Shows Up in Investing
Unlike roulette, stock prices are not independent — momentum and trends are real. However, investors still fall prey to gambler’s fallacy in specific and costly ways:
- “This stock has dropped for 6 months straight. It’s due for a bounce.” Maybe. Or maybe the business is fundamentally deteriorating and the stock has another 50% to fall. A stock that has gone from $100 to $50 can just as easily go from $50 to $25. There is no cosmic law requiring stocks to recover.
- “The market hasn’t had a crash in years. One is overdue.” This leads investors to sit in cash waiting for a correction that may not come for years, missing substantial gains in the meantime. The market doesn’t operate on a fixed schedule.
- “This stock has gone up 5 days in a row. It has to pull back.” Investors sell winning positions prematurely because they feel a reversal is mathematically inevitable, when in reality, strong stocks can continue climbing for months or years.
- Averaging down blindly: Buying more of a falling stock because “it can’t go lower” is one of the most expensive applications of gambler’s fallacy. Yes, it can go lower. It can go to zero.
What It Costs You
The gambler’s fallacy leads to the dangerous practice of “catching falling knives” — buying stocks in freefall because they feel “cheap” relative to where they were. Investors who bought General Electric at $20 because it had been at $30 watched it fall to $6. Investors who bought Peloton at $40 because it had been at $170 watched it drop to $5. The previous price is not a floor.
The Bandwagon Effect — Herding Into Popular Stocks
What It Is
The bandwagon effect is the tendency to adopt beliefs and behaviors because other people are doing the same. In evolutionary terms, this made sense — if everyone in your tribe is running in one direction, you should probably run too, because they might have spotted a predator you haven’t noticed yet. In investing, herding behavior is usually a recipe for buying high and selling low.
How It Shows Up in Investing
Herding is the force behind every bubble and every crash. When a stock or sector becomes popular, a self-reinforcing cycle begins:
- Early investors buy and make profits.
- Their success attracts media attention and social media buzz.
- New investors pile in, driving prices higher.
- Rising prices generate more media coverage, which attracts more investors.
- Eventually, prices detach from any reasonable valuation.
- The last buyers — usually the least experienced investors, the ones who joined the bandwagon latest — are left holding overpriced assets when the music stops.
We’ve seen this cycle play out with breathtaking regularity: dot-com stocks in 1999-2000, housing in 2006-2007, meme stocks like GameStop in 2021, SPACs in 2021, and various crypto tokens throughout the last decade.
Social media has supercharged the bandwagon effect. Platforms like Reddit’s WallStreetBets, Twitter/X finance communities, and TikTok investing influencers create echo chambers where everyone is buying the same stocks and reinforcing each other’s conviction. Dissenting opinions get downvoted or mocked, creating an illusion of consensus that makes the trade feel safe.
What It Costs You
Research by Ilia Dichev at Emory University shows that dollar-weighted returns (which account for when investors actually put money in and took it out) are significantly lower than time-weighted returns (which assume a fixed investment). The reason? Investors systematically pile in after strong performance and bail out after poor performance. They buy at the top and sell at the bottom — because that’s where the herd goes.
Mental Accounting — Not All Dollars Are Created Equal (Except They Are)
What It Is
Mental accounting, a concept developed by Nobel laureate Richard Thaler, is the tendency to treat money differently depending on its source, where it’s kept, or how it’s categorized — even though money is perfectly fungible. A dollar is a dollar, regardless of whether you earned it at your job, won it in a poker game, or received it as a tax refund.
But that’s not how our brains work. People will drive across town to save $10 on a $30 item but won’t bother to save $10 on a $1,000 item. The $10 is identical in both cases, but mental accounting makes it “feel” different.
How It Shows Up in Investing
Mental accounting manifests in several dangerous ways in investing:
- The “house money” effect: After making profits in the market, investors often treat those gains as “free money” and take outsized risks with them — as if losing gains is somehow less painful than losing their original investment. A $10,000 gain is real money. It can pay rent, buy groceries, or fund retirement. Treating it as play money is treating real wealth as disposable.
- Separate mental accounts for different investments: Investors often evaluate each stock position in isolation rather than looking at their portfolio as a whole. They might refuse to sell a losing stock in one “account” while simultaneously ignoring that selling it would improve their overall portfolio’s risk-adjusted return.
- Dividend worship: Some investors insist on buying only dividend-paying stocks, treating dividends as “income” and capital gains as something different. But economically, a $1 dividend and a $1 capital gain are identical — in fact, dividends are often less tax-efficient. The preference for dividends is a mental accounting illusion.
- The “break-even” obsession: Investors who are down on a position will hold it desperately until they break even, then sell immediately. This is mental accounting intersecting with anchoring — they’ve created a mental account for that position, and they can’t “close” the account at a loss.
What It Costs You
Mental accounting leads to suboptimal portfolio construction. By treating each position as an independent mental account, investors fail to think about correlations, overall risk exposure, and tax-efficient strategies that operate at the portfolio level. They also take too much risk with gains and too little risk with their original capital, leading to an inconsistent and ultimately destructive risk profile.
Status Quo Bias — The Hidden Cost of Doing Nothing
What It Is
Status quo bias is the preference for the current state of affairs. People tend to treat any change as a loss, which means they require a disproportionately strong reason to act compared to doing nothing. Inaction feels safe; action feels risky. But in investing, inaction is itself a decision — and often a costly one.
This bias is closely related to loss aversion (we feel losses roughly twice as intensely as equivalent gains) and the endowment effect (we value things we own more than identical things we don’t own, simply because we own them).
How It Shows Up in Investing
Status quo bias is the silent portfolio killer because it manifests as not doing things, which makes it invisible. You don’t notice the trades you didn’t make. Specifically:
- Holding stocks you would never buy today: Many investors own stocks that they bought years ago for reasons that no longer apply. The original thesis has broken down, the company has changed, or better opportunities are available. But selling requires action, and action triggers anxiety, so they hold.
- Staying in the wrong asset allocation: Your ideal stock/bond split at age 25 is very different from your ideal split at 55. But rebalancing requires active decisions, so many investors drift into increasingly inappropriate allocations over time.
- Defaulting to the familiar: Investors disproportionately buy stocks from their home country, their employer’s industry, or companies whose products they use — not because these are the best investments, but because they’re the default option in the investor’s mental landscape.
- Neglecting tax-loss harvesting: Selling losers to offset gains requires initiative. The status quo — doing nothing — is always easier, even when acting would save thousands in taxes.
What It Costs You
The cost of status quo bias is opportunity cost — the returns you didn’t earn because you held onto suboptimal positions instead of reallocating to better ones. This is the hardest cost to measure because it’s invisible, but studies of institutional endowments suggest that regular portfolio rebalancing adds 0.5% to 1.5% in annual returns compared to buy-and-forget strategies.
The Framing Effect — How Presentation Changes Your Decisions
What It Is
The framing effect is the tendency to react differently to information depending on how it’s presented, even when the underlying facts are identical. A medical procedure with a “90% survival rate” feels much safer than one with a “10% mortality rate” — despite these being the exact same statistic.
Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated this extensively: people are risk-averse when choices are framed as gains (“you have a 80% chance of keeping $300”) and risk-seeking when the same choices are framed as losses (“you have a 80% chance of losing $700 out of $1,000”). Same outcome, different frame, different decision.
How It Shows Up in Investing
Financial information is always framed, and the frame often determines investor behavior more than the underlying data:
- Percentage vs. dollar framing: “The stock is down 2%” sounds minor. “You lost $14,000” sounds alarming. Same event, different response. Brokerages know this — most default to showing percentage changes on overview screens and dollar changes in account details.
- Time-period cherry-picking: A fund that lost 15% last year can advertise its “10-year average annual return of 9%.” Both numbers are true, but the one they emphasize changes how you perceive the fund.
- Earnings reports framing: Companies are masters of framing. They report “adjusted earnings” that exclude bad stuff and “non-GAAP metrics” that paint a rosier picture. A company might report a GAAP loss while simultaneously trumpeting “adjusted EBITDA growth” — and investors focus on whichever frame the company emphasizes.
- Gain/loss asymmetry: Investment newsletters know that framing recommendations as “protecting against losses” is more persuasive than framing them as “capturing gains,” because loss aversion makes the loss frame more emotionally compelling.
- Relative vs. absolute returns: “We beat the benchmark by 3%” sounds great, but if the benchmark lost 20%, you still lost 17%. Relative framing can disguise absolute destruction.
What It Costs You
The framing effect causes investors to make inconsistent decisions — being conservative in one context and aggressive in another, based purely on presentation rather than substance. It also makes investors susceptible to manipulation by companies, funds, and media outlets that frame information to serve their own interests.
All 10 Cognitive Biases at a Glance
| Bias | Definition | Investing Example | Estimated Cost | Primary Fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anchoring | Fixating on an initial reference point | Refusing to sell a loser until it returns to your purchase price | 1-3% annually | Ask “Would I buy this today?” |
| Availability Heuristic | Judging probability by how easily examples come to mind | Panic-selling after a crash because it feels like crashes are common | 3-4% annually | 72-hour cooling-off rule |
| Dunning-Kruger | Overestimating skill due to limited experience | Overtrading after early bull market profits | 2-6% annually | Keep an investment journal; benchmark vs. index |
| Narrative Fallacy | Creating coherent stories for random events | Buying a “story stock” at any price because the narrative is compelling | 1-3% annually | Analyze numbers first, story second |
| Hindsight Bias | Believing you predicted outcomes after the fact | “I knew crypto would crash” (but didn’t sell) | Compounds over time via false confidence | Write time-stamped predictions |
| Gambler’s Fallacy | Believing past events change future probabilities | Buying a falling stock because it’s “due for a bounce” | Potentially total loss | Use fundamentals, not price history, to judge value |
| Bandwagon Effect | Following the crowd’s behavior | Piling into meme stocks or hyped sectors at the peak | Buying at tops, selling at bottoms | Independent research process; beware of FOMO |
| Mental Accounting | Treating equivalent money differently by source | Gambling recklessly with “house money” profits | Inconsistent risk management | Think in total portfolio terms |
| Status Quo Bias | Preferring inaction over action | Holding outdated positions because selling requires effort | 0.5-1.5% annually in missed rebalancing | Scheduled quarterly portfolio reviews |
| Framing Effect | Reacting to presentation rather than substance | Focusing on “adjusted” earnings while ignoring GAAP losses | Inconsistent, manipulation-prone decisions | Reframe information from multiple angles |
Building Your Mental Defense System
If there’s one meta-lesson from all ten of these biases, it’s this: your intuitions about investing are systematically wrong in predictable ways. Not occasionally, not randomly — systematically and predictably. That’s actually good news, because predictable errors can be countered with predictable defenses.
Here’s a practical framework for protecting yourself:
Create Process, Not Predictions
The investors who consistently outperform are rarely the ones with the best predictions. They’re the ones with the best processes. A good investment process includes written criteria for buying and selling, predetermined position sizes, regular rebalancing schedules, and checklists that force you to consider information you’d otherwise ignore. Process turns investing from an emotional gauntlet into a systematic discipline.
Write Everything Down
If there’s one single habit that combats the most biases simultaneously, it’s keeping a written investment journal. Writing down your thesis before buying defeats hindsight bias. Reviewing your predictions defeats Dunning-Kruger overconfidence. Seeing your past emotional reactions in black and white defeats the availability heuristic. The journal is your most powerful debiasing tool.
Automate What You Can
Dollar-cost averaging, automatic rebalancing, and target-date funds exist specifically to take human psychology out of the equation. These aren’t “beginner” strategies — they’re psychologically sophisticated tools that prevent your biases from eroding your returns. Many of the world’s most successful investors automate significant portions of their process precisely because they understand how unreliable human judgment can be.
Seek Disconfirming Evidence
For every investment you own or are considering, actively look for reasons you might be wrong. Read the bear case. Talk to people who disagree with you. If you can’t articulate a strong argument against your own position, you probably don’t understand it well enough. Charlie Munger famously said: “I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do.”
Accept That You Will Be Wrong
Perhaps the most important mental shift is simply accepting that you will make mistakes. Every investor does. The difference between successful and unsuccessful investors isn’t the number of mistakes — it’s how they manage them. Cut losses early. Let winners run. Diversify so that no single mistake is catastrophic. And never, ever let your ego prevent you from changing your mind when the evidence changes.
The market will always be uncertain. Your own psychology doesn’t have to be. By understanding these ten thinking errors and building systematic defenses against them, you give yourself something most investors never have: a clear, honest view of both the market and yourself.
That clarity, over a lifetime of investing, is worth far more than any stock tip.
References
- Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1974). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
- Odean, T. (1998). “Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?” The Journal of Finance, 53(5), 1775-1798.
- Barber, B.M. & Odean, T. (2000). “Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth.” The Journal of Finance, 55(2), 773-806.
- Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (1999). “Unskilled and Unaware of It.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.
- Taleb, N.N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House.
- Thaler, R.H. (1999). “Mental Accounting Matters.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183-206.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- DALBAR, Inc. (2024). Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior (30th Annual Report).
- Dichev, I.D. (2007). “What Are Stock Investors’ Actual Historical Returns?” The American Economic Review, 97(1), 386-401.
- Damodaran, A. (2014). “The Story Behind the Numbers.” Journal of Applied Finance. NYU Stern School of Business.
- Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59.
- Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Leave a Reply