98:: absolute risk, where individuals are asked to estimate their likelihood of experiencing a negative event compared to their actual chance of experiencing a negative event (comparison against self), and comparative risk, where individuals are asked to estimate the likelihood of experiencing a negative event (their personal risk estimate) compared to others of the same age and sex (a target risk estimate). Problems can occur when trying to measure absolute risk because it is extremely difficult to determine the actual risk statistic for a person. Therefore, the optimistic bias is primarily measured in comparative risk forms, where people compare themselves against others, through direct and indirect comparisons. Direct comparisons ask whether an individual's own risk of experiencing an event is less than, greater than, or equal to someone else's risk, while indirect comparisons ask individuals to provide separate estimates of their own risk of experiencing an event and others' risk of experiencing the same event.
145:
individual, risk estimates appear closer together than if the comparison target was someone more distant to the participant. There is support for perceived social distance in determining the optimistic bias. Through looking at comparisons of personal and target risk between the in-group level contributes to more perceived similarities than when individuals think about outer-group comparisons which lead to greater perceived differences. In one study, researchers manipulated the social context of the comparison group, where participants made judgements for two different comparison targets: the typical student at their university and a typical student at another university. Their findings showed that not only did people work with the closer comparison first, but also had closer ratings to themselves than the "more different" group.
249:"Egocentric thinking" refers to how individuals know more of their own personal information and risk that they can use to form judgments and make decisions. One difficulty, though, is that people have a large amount of knowledge about themselves, but no knowledge about others. Therefore, when making decisions, people have to use other information available to them, such as population data, in order to learn more about their comparison group. This can relate to an optimism bias because while people are using the available information they have about themselves, they have more difficulty understanding correct information about others.
184:
want to appear better off than others. However, this is not through conscious effort. In a study where participants believed their driving skills would be either tested in either real-life or driving simulations, people who believed they were to be tested had less optimistic bias and were more modest about their skills than individuals who would not be tested. Studies also suggest that individuals who present themselves in a pessimistic and more negative light are generally less accepted by the rest of society. This might contribute to overly optimistic attitudes.
127:
driver. Individuals compare themselves with the negative elements that come to mind, rather than an overall accurate comparison between them and another driver. Additionally, when individuals were asked to compare themselves towards friends, they chose more vulnerable friends based on the events they were looking at. Individuals generally chose a specific friend based on whether they resemble a given example, rather than just an average friend. People find examples that relate directly to what they are asked, resulting in representativeness heuristics.
102:
estimate of others. This is then used to demonstrate the bias' effect. The optimistic bias can only be defined at a group level, because at an individual level the positive assessment could be true. Likewise, difficulties can arise in measurement procedures, as it is difficult to determine when someone is being optimistic, realistic, or pessimistic. Research suggests that the bias comes from an overestimate of group risks rather than underestimating one's own risk.
377:
more optimistically biased results. In a research study of four different tests to reduce the optimistic bias, through lists of risk factors, participants perceiving themselves as inferior to others, participants asked to think of high-risk individuals, and giving attributes of why they were at risk, all increased the bias rather than decreased it. Other studies have tried to reduce the bias through reducing distance, but overall it still remains.
205:
non-students. The format of the study also demonstrated differences in the relationship between perceived control and the optimistic bias: direct methods of measurement suggested greater perceived control and greater optimistic bias as compared to indirect measures of the bias. The optimistic bias is strongest in situations where an individual needs to rely heavily on direct action and responsibility of situations.
401:
studies found that when individuals were asked to make comparisons between themselves and close friends, there was almost no difference in the likelihood of an event occurring. Additionally, actually experiencing an event leads to a decrease in the optimistic bias. While this only applies to events with prior experience, knowing the previously unknown will result in less optimism of it not occurring.
175:
supports what they want to see happen, rather than what will happen to them. With regards to the optimistic bias, individuals will perceive events more favorably, because that is what they would like the outcome to be. This also suggests that people might lower their risks compared to others to make themselves look better than average: they are less at risk than others and therefore better.
295:
concerned about risk of heart disease. Because the optimistic bias can be a strong force in decision-making, it is important to look at how risk perception is determined and how this will result in preventative behaviors. Therefore, researchers need to be aware of the optimistic bias and the ways it can prevent people from taking precautionary measures in life choices.
360:
rate the comparative likelihood that they would experience the event. Other participants were given matched information about the conditions that prevent the same event and were asked to rate the comparative likelihood that they would avoid the event". They have generally found that unrealistic optimism was greater for negative than positive valence.
286:
memories and more positive feelings. This suggests that overall negative moods, including depression, result in increased personal risk estimates but less optimistic bias overall. Anxiety also leads to less optimistic bias, continuing to suggest that overall positive experiences and positive attitudes lead to more optimistic bias in events.
443:
376:
Studies have shown that it is very difficult to eliminate the optimistic bias. Some commentators believe that trying to reduce it may encourage people to adapt to health-protective behaviors. However, research has suggested that it cannot be reduced, and that efforts to reduce it tend to lead to even
359:
on unrealistic optimism. It has been studied by Ron S. Gold and his team since 2003. They frame questions for the same event in different ways: "some participants were given information about the conditions that promote a given health-related event, such as developing heart disease, and were asked to
318:
Functional neuroimaging suggests a key role for the rostral
Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC) in modulating both emotional processing and autobiographical retrieval. It is part of brain network showing extensive correlation between rostral ACC and amygdala during imagining of future positive events and
144:
Perceived risk differences occur depending on how far or close a compared target is to an individual making a risk estimate. The greater the perceived distance between the self and the comparison target, the greater the perceived difference in risk. When one brings the comparison target closer to the
63:
Although the optimism bias occurs for both positive events (such as believing oneself to be more financially successful than others) and negative events (such as being less likely to have a drinking problem), there is more research and evidence suggesting that the bias is stronger for negative events
59:
Four factors can cause a person to be optimistically biased: their desired end state, their cognitive mechanisms, the information they have about themselves versus others, and overall mood. The optimistic bias is seen in a number of situations. For example: people believing that they are less at risk
272:
For example, many smokers believe that they are taking all necessary precautionary measures so that they won't get lung cancer, such as smoking only once a day, or using filtered cigarettes, and believe that others are not taking the same precautionary measures. However, it is likely that many other
192:
People tend to be more optimistically biased when they believe they have more control over events than others. For example, people are more likely to think that they will not be harmed in a car accident if they are driving the vehicle. Another example is that if someone believes that they have a lot
234:
is the tendency to evaluate an object more favorably the more the object resembles an individual human being. Generally, the more a comparison target resembles a specific person, the more familiar it will be. However, groups of people are considered to be more abstract concepts, which leads to less
204:
found that a number of moderators contribute to this relationship. In previous research, participants from the United States generally had higher levels of optimistic bias relating to perceived control than those of other nationalities. Students also showed larger levels of the optimistic bias than
309:
Concerning vaccines, perceptions of those who have not been vaccinated are compared to the perceptions of people who have been. Other problems which arise include the failure to know a person's perception of a risk. Knowing this information will be helpful for continued research on optimistic bias
301:
A large portion of risk prevention focuses on adolescents. Especially with health risk perception, adolescence is associated with an increased frequency of risky health-related behaviors such as smoking, drugs, and unsafe sex. While adolescents are aware of the risk, this awareness does not change
252:
It is also possible that someone can escape egocentric thinking. In one study, researchers had one group of participants list all factors that influenced their chances of experiencing a variety of events, and then a second group read the list. Those who read the list showed less optimistic bias in
221:
Individuals know a lot more about themselves than they do about others. Because information about others is less available, information about the self versus others leads people to make specific conclusions about their own risk, but results in them having a harder time making conclusions about the
212:
is that of prior experience. Prior experience is typically associated with less optimistic bias, which some studies suggest is from either a decrease in the perception of personal control, or make it easier for individuals to imagine themselves at risk. Prior experience suggests that events may be
183:
Studies suggest that people attempt to establish and maintain a desired personal image in social situations. People are motivated to present themselves towards others in a good light, and some researchers suggest that the optimistic bias is a representative of self-presentational processes: people
126:
is a reason for the optimistic bias: individuals tend to think in stereotypical categories rather than about their actual targets when making comparisons. For example, when drivers are asked to think about a car accident, they are more likely to associate a bad driver, rather than just the average
60:
of being a crime victim, smokers believing that they are less likely to contract lung cancer or disease than other smokers, first-time bungee jumpers believing that they are less at risk of an injury than other jumpers, or traders who think they are less exposed to potential losses in the markets.
409:
The opposite of optimism bias is pessimism bias (or pessimistic bias), because the principles of the optimistic bias continue to be in effect in situations where individuals regard themselves as worse off than others. Optimism may occur from either a distortion of personal estimates, representing
235:
favorable judgments. With regards to the optimistic bias, when people compare themselves to an average person, whether someone of the same sex or age, the target continues to be viewed as less human and less personified, which will result in less favorable comparisons between the self and others.
400:
Although research has suggested that it is very difficult to eliminate the bias, some factors may help in closing the gap of the optimistic bias between an individual and their target risk group. First, by placing the comparison group closer to the individual, the optimistic bias can be reduced:
101:
After obtaining scores, researchers are able to use the information to determine if there is a difference in the average risk estimate of the individual compared to the average risk estimate of their peers. Generally, in negative events, the mean risk of an individual appears lower than the risk
305:
However, unconditional risk questions in cross-sectional studies are used consistently, leading to problems, as they ask about the likelihood of an action occurring, but does not determine if there is an outcome, or compare events that haven't happened to events that have. many times there are
294:
In health, the optimistic bias tends to prevent individuals from taking on preventative measures for good health. For example, people who underestimate their comparative risk of heart disease know less about heart disease, and even after reading an article with more information, are still less
148:
Studies have also noticed that people demonstrate more optimistic bias when making comparisons when the other is a vague individual, but biases are reduced when the other is a familiar person, such as a friend or family member. This also is determined due to the information they have about the
285:
and affect experience. Research has found that people show less optimistic bias when experiencing a negative mood, and more optimistic bias when in a positive mood. Sad moods reflect greater memories of negative events, which lead to more negative judgments, while positive moods promote happy
174:
Self-enhancement suggests that optimistic predictions are satisfying and that it feels good to think that positive events will happen. People can control their anxiety and other negative emotions if they believe they are better off than others. People tend to focus on finding information that
363:
Valence effects, which is also considered a form of cognitive bias, have several real-world implications. For instance, it can lead to the overestimation of a company's future earnings by investors and this could contribute to a tendency for it to becoming overpriced. In terms of achieving
135:
One of the difficulties of the optimistic bias is that people know more about themselves than they do about others. While individuals know how to think about themselves as a single person, they still think of others as a generalized group, which leads to biased estimates and inabilities to
70:). Different consequences result from these two types of events: positive events often lead to feelings of well being and self-esteem, while negative events lead to consequences involving more risk, such as engaging in risky behaviors and not taking precautionary measures for safety.
319:
restricted correlation during imagining of future negative events. Based on these data, it is suggested that the rostral ACC has a crucial part to play in creating positive images of the future and ultimately, in ensuring and maintaining the optimism bias.
157:
Many explanations for the optimistic bias come from the goals that people want and outcomes they wish to see. People tend to view their risks as less than others because they believe that this is what other people want to see. These explanations include
136:
sufficiently understand their target or comparison group. Likewise, when making judgments and comparisons about their risk compared to others, people generally ignore the average person, but primarily focus on their own feelings and experiences.
327:
Optimism bias influences decisions and forecasts in policy, planning, and management, e.g., the costs and completion times of planned decisions tend to be underestimated and the benefits overestimated due to optimism bias. The term
1444:
1030:
Radcliffe, Nathan M.; William M. P. Klein (2002). "Dispositional, Unrealistic, and
Comparative Optimism: Differential Relations with the Knowledge and Processing of Risk Information and Beliefs about Personal Risk".
113:
The optimistic bias is possibly also influenced by three cognitive mechanisms that guide judgments and decision-making processes: the representativeness heuristic, singular target focus, and interpersonal distance.
122:
The estimates of likelihood associated with the optimistic bias are based on how closely an event matches a person's overall idea of the specific event. Some researchers suggest that the
1461:
Pezzo, Mark V.; Litman, Jordan A.; Pezzo, Stephanie P. (2006). "On the distinction between yuppies and hippies: Individual differences in prediction biases for planning future tasks".
977:
1953:
1403:
197:
someone has, the greater their optimistic bias. Stemming from this, control is a stronger factor when it comes to personal risk assessments, but not when assessing others.
253:
their own reports. It's possible that greater knowledge about others and their perceptions of their chances of risk bring the comparison group closer to the participant.
380:
This seemingly paradoxical situation – in which an attempt to reduce bias can sometimes actually increase it – may be related to the insight behind the semi-jocular and
261:
Also regarding egocentric thinking, it is possible that individuals underestimate the amount of control the average person has. This is explained in two different ways:
222:
risks of others. This leads to differences in judgments and conclusions about self-risks compared to the risks of others, leading to larger gaps in the optimistic bias.
2681:
1346:
193:
of control over becoming infected with HIV, they are more likely to view their risk of contracting the disease to be low. Studies have suggested that the greater
1569:
Flyvbjerg, Bent (2011). "Over Budget, Over Time, Over and Over Again: Managing Major
Projects". In Morris, Peter W. G.; Pinto, Jeffrey; Söderlund, Jonas (eds.).
1745:
Research in
Systems Analysis and Design: Models and Methods: 4th SIGSAND/PLAIS EuroSymposium 2011, Gdańsk, Poland, September 29, 2011, Revised Selected Papers
2656:
1496:
Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (1982) . "Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures". In
Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; Tversky, Amos (eds.).
1172:
Harris, P; Wendy
Middleton; Richard Joiner (2000). "The typical student as an in-group member: eliminating optimistic bias by reducing social distance".
105:
An example: participants assigned a higher probability to picking a card that had a smiling face on its reverse side than one which had a frowning face.
833:
1993, Intro – sections "Psychology is the Key" & "The Odds are against You", And Part I "Individual
Psychology", Section 5 "Fantasy versus Reality"
2686:
1404:"A Longitudinal Study of the Reciprocal Nature of Risk Behaviors and Cognitions in Adolescents: What You Do Shapes What You Think, and Vice Versa"
302:
behavior habits. Adolescents with strong positive optimistic bias toward risky behaviors had an overall increase in the optimistic bias with age.
725:
1185:
1586:
554:
1008:
1984:
1199:
McKenna, F. P; R. A. Stanier; C. Lewis (1991). "Factors underlying illusionary self-assessment of driving skill in males and females".
1758:
1697:
1518:
78:
The factors leading to the optimistic bias can be categorized into four different groups: desired end states of comparative judgment,
838:
1995:
1275:
Harris, Peter (1996). "Sufficient grounds for optimism?: The relationship between perceived controllability and optimistic bias".
2083:
1532:
1235:
2676:
2486:
1824:
Sharot, Tali; Riccardi, Alison M.; Raio, Candace M.; Phelps, Elizabeth A. (2007). "Neural mechanisms mediating optimism bias".
1725:
56:
are less susceptible to this kind of biases. Optimistic biases have also reported in other animals, such as rats and birds.
2605:
2491:
2145:
912:
2140:
340:. There is a growing body of evidence proving that optimism bias represents one of the biggest single causes of risk for
1385:
123:
41:
that causes someone to believe that they themselves are less likely to experience a negative event. It is also known as
2263:
504:
298:
Risk perceptions are particularly important for individual behaviors, such as exercise, diet, and even sunscreen use.
427:
are particularly likely to exhibit pessimism bias. Surveys of smokers have found that their ratings of their risk of
2789:
2599:
2125:
1345:
Brewer, Noel T.; Gretchen B. Chapman; Fredrick X. Gibbons; Meg
Gerrard; Kevin D. McCaul; Neil D. Weinstein (2007).
1305:
Bränström, Richard; Yvonne
Brandberg (2010). "Health Risk Perception, Optimistic Bias, and Personal Satisfaction".
2231:
2779:
2729:
2453:
2253:
1138:
Perloff, Linda S; Barbara K. Fetzer (1986). "Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization".
364:
organizational objectives, it could encourage people to produce unrealistic schedules helping drive a so-called
2758:
2753:
2666:
2548:
2313:
2293:
2189:
528:
481:
424:
1778:
1347:"Meta-analysis of the Relationship Between Risk Perception and Health Behavior: The Example of Vaccination"
913:"Do Moderators of the Optimistic Bias Affect Personal or Target Risk Estimates? A Review of the Literature"
2739:
2423:
2403:
2184:
2162:
1418:
1097:
927:
740:
2518:
2433:
2408:
2353:
2012:
Gold, Ron S.; Brown, Mark G. (2009). "Explaining the effect of event valence on unrealistic optimism".
2784:
2471:
2323:
2199:
2076:
1833:
830:
469:
356:
1423:
1102:
745:
578:"Brief Report: Reduced Optimism Bias in Self-Referential Belief Updating in High-Functioning Autism"
2626:
2543:
2443:
2378:
2318:
2308:
2303:
2167:
1602:
Gold, Ron S.; Sousa, Phillip N. de (2012). "When does event valence affect unrealistic optimism?".
932:
760:
463:
431:
showed a small but significant pessimism bias; however, the literature as a whole is inconclusive.
393:
385:
282:
83:
2523:
2508:
2268:
2258:
2241:
2037:
1865:
1806:
1670:
1627:
1543:
1377:
1115:
1048:
1000:
945:
605:
498:
457:
1750:
857:
Gouveia, Susana O.; Valerie Clarke (2001). "Optimistic bias for negative and positive events".
2794:
2636:
2573:
2558:
2481:
2463:
2398:
2194:
2110:
2055:
2029:
1976:
1902:
1857:
1849:
1798:
1754:
1721:
1693:
1662:
1619:
1582:
1578:
1524:
1514:
1436:
1369:
1322:
1216:
834:
657:
649:
597:
510:
493:
448:
209:
201:
194:
163:
2703:
2563:
2503:
2428:
2413:
2273:
2226:
2135:
2130:
2115:
2021:
1968:
1928:
1892:
1841:
1790:
1742:
1654:
1611:
1574:
1506:
1478:
1470:
1428:
1361:
1314:
1284:
1250:
1208:
1181:
1147:
1107:
1040:
992:
937:
866:
812:
750:
639:
589:
522:
516:
365:
329:
159:
2671:
2661:
2438:
2418:
2333:
2236:
2211:
2206:
2179:
2157:
2069:
1555:
487:
420:
the likelihood that negative things will happen to them. It contrasts with optimism bias.
333:
231:
803:
Weinstein, Neil D.; William M. Klein (1996). "Unrealistic
Optimism: Present and Future".
52:
Optimism bias is common and transcends gender, ethnicity, nationality, and age. However,
1837:
1645:
Gold, Ron S.; Martyn, Kate (6 December 2016). "Event Valence and Unrealistic Optimism".
2713:
2708:
2698:
2621:
2538:
2498:
2448:
2393:
2383:
2368:
2363:
2328:
2283:
2248:
2152:
2101:
1949:
1497:
829:
Elder; Alexander "Trading for a Living; Psychology, Trading Tactics, Money Management"
66:
38:
2773:
2651:
2631:
2594:
2568:
2553:
2533:
2513:
2476:
2388:
2343:
2338:
2216:
2120:
1743:
1505:(Decision Research Technical Report PTR-1042-77-6). Vol. 185. pp. 414–421.
1212:
1052:
1004:
778:
609:
484: – Argument that one does not need privacy unless they are doing something wrong
475:
428:
149:
individuals closest to them, but not having the same information about other people.
2041:
1810:
1674:
1631:
1402:
Gerrard, Meg; Gibbons, Frederick X.; Benthin, Alida C.; Hessling, Robert M. (1996).
1119:
949:
2611:
2373:
2358:
1883:
Wang, PS (2004), "Effects of major depression on moment-in-time work performance",
1869:
1381:
337:
1615:
1510:
2528:
2298:
2288:
2278:
2174:
1658:
996:
941:
410:
personal optimism, or a distortion for others, representing personal pessimism.
341:
1794:
1474:
1432:
1365:
1254:
1151:
1111:
2646:
2641:
2616:
2025:
1932:
1186:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2<235::AID-EJSP990>3.0.CO;2-G
870:
644:
627:
593:
438:
417:
17:
1919:
Sutton, Stephen R. (1999), "How accurate are smokers' perceptions of risk?",
1853:
1288:
1044:
816:
653:
531: – Systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment
513: – Distortion to enhance self-esteem, or to see oneself overly favorably
2734:
2221:
1897:
1088:
Weinstein, Neil D. (1980). "Unrealistic optimism about future life events".
1069:. The Staple Inn Actuarial Society, 2000-01-18. Last accessed on 2009-03-16.
577:
381:
268:
People completely overlook that others have control over their own outcomes.
79:
2033:
1906:
1861:
1666:
1623:
1528:
1373:
1326:
661:
601:
472: – Overestimating one's abilities and qualifications; a cognitive bias
200:
A meta-analysis reviewing the relationship between the optimistic bias and
1980:
1802:
1440:
1220:
2693:
2578:
1845:
1318:
724:
Shepperd, James A.; Patrick Carroll; Jodi Grace; Meredith Terry (2002).
392:
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account
525: – Formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine
368:, which often result in making poor decisions and project abandonment.
244:
82:
mechanisms, information about the self versus a target, and underlying
1482:
1972:
273:
smokers are doing the same things and taking those same precautions.
53:
1779:"Resistance of Personal Risk Perceptions to Debiasing Interventions"
978:"Perceived Control and the Optimistic Bias: A Meta-analytic Review"
779:"Optimistic Bias: What you Think, What you Know, or Whom you Know?"
755:
1692:. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. p. 81.
265:
People underestimate the control that others have in their lives.
2092:
490: – Tendency to give more importance to negative experiences
478: – Disbelief or minimization in response to threat warnings
95:
94:
Optimism bias is typically measured through two determinants of
2065:
1720:. Newburyport, MA: Data Driven Publishing, LLC. p. 323.
1234:
Helweg-Larsen, Marie; Pedram Sadeghian; Mary S. Webb (2002).
1067:
Making Actuaries Less Human: Lessons from Behavioral Finance
2061:
281:
The last factor of optimistic bias is that of underlying
555:"The neural basis of always looking on the bright side"
576:
Kuzmanovic, B.; Rigoux, L.; Vogeley, K. (2014-01-14).
1772:
1770:
1573:. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 321–344.
906:
904:
902:
900:
466: – False belief in an ability to control events
2722:
2587:
2462:
2099:
898:
896:
894:
892:
890:
888:
886:
884:
882:
880:
976:Klein, Cynthia T. F.; Marie Helweg-Larsen (2002).
559:Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences
1499:Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
1083:
1081:
1079:
1077:
1075:
1025:
1023:
1021:
911:Helweg-Larsen, Marie; James A. Shepperd (2001).
798:
796:
719:
717:
715:
713:
711:
709:
707:
705:
703:
701:
699:
697:
695:
693:
691:
390:
2000:For picking a card see section 6.2 on page 15.
1133:
1131:
1129:
726:"Exploring the Causes of Comparative Optimism"
689:
687:
685:
683:
681:
679:
677:
675:
673:
671:
2077:
1777:Weinstein, Neil D.; William M. Klein (1995).
1340:
1338:
1336:
1270:
1268:
1266:
1264:
1167:
1165:
1163:
1161:
852:
850:
848:
846:
582:Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
8:
1961:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1300:
1298:
1236:"The stigma of being pessimistically biased"
1140:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1090:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
971:
969:
967:
965:
963:
961:
959:
213:less controllable than previously believed.
86:. These are explained more in detail below.
1718:Data Driven Investing: Professional Edition
501: – Unrealistically favorable attitudes
2740:Heuristics in judgment and decision-making
2084:
2070:
2062:
1033:Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
153:Desired end states of comparative judgment
1896:
1571:The Oxford Handbook of Project Management
1422:
1277:Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
1243:Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
1101:
931:
805:Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
754:
744:
643:
306:methodological problems in these tests.
920:Personality and Social Psychology Review
548:
546:
257:Underestimating average person's control
1579:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0014
542:
507: – Method of predicting the future
1551:
1541:
1463:Personality and Individual Differences
332:for this effect was first proposed by
1711:
1709:
1174:European Journal of Social Psychology
7:
1998:. Staple Inn Actuarial Society, 15.
783:North American Journal of Psychology
777:Chapin, John; Grace Coleman (2009).
621:
619:
217:Information about self versus target
1716:Hardy, Mitch; Matson, Bill (2004).
1307:American Journal of Health Behavior
460: – Hypothesis about depression
355:is used to allude to the effect of
188:Personal control/perceived control
25:
2014:Psychology, Health & Medicine
1749:. Heidelberg: Springer. pp.
1604:Psychology, Health & Medicine
2056:"Tali Sharot: The optimism bias"
1538:from the original on 2013-09-08.
1450:from the original on 2016-06-02.
1201:Accident Analysis and Prevention
441:
323:Policy, planning, and management
2058:, Tali Sharot's talk at TED.com
519: – Construct in psychology
372:Attempts to alter and eliminate
1885:American Journal of Psychiatry
1:
1688:Szatkowski, Mirosław (2018).
416:is an effect in which people
1690:Ontology of Theistic Beliefs
1616:10.1080/13548506.2011.582503
1511:10.1017/CBO9780511809477.031
1213:10.1016/0001-4575(91)90034-3
310:and preventative behaviors.
124:representativeness heuristic
118:Representativeness heuristic
2606:DĂ©formation professionnelle
1996:Making Actuaries Less Human
1659:10.2466/pr0.2003.92.3c.1105
997:10.1080/0887044022000004920
942:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_5
626:Sharot, Tali (2011-12-06).
553:Owen P, O'Sullivan (2015).
505:Reference class forecasting
2811:
2600:Basking in reflected glory
1952:; Messick, Samuel (1966).
1921:Health, Risk & Society
1795:10.1037/0278-6133.14.2.132
1741:Wrycza, Stanisław (2011).
1475:10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.029
1433:10.1037/0278-6133.15.5.344
1366:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136
1255:10.1521/jscp.21.1.92.22405
1152:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.502
1112:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806
242:
2748:
2730:Cognitive bias mitigation
2026:10.1080/13548500802241910
1933:10.1080/13698579908407020
871:10.1108/09654280110402080
645:10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030
594:10.1007/s10803-016-2940-0
162:, self-presentation, and
2314:Illusion of transparency
1954:"Affect and expectation"
1289:10.1521/jscp.1996.15.1.9
1045:10.1177/0146167202289012
817:10.1521/jscp.1996.15.1.1
529:List of cognitive biases
482:Nothing to hide argument
1898:10.1176/ajp.161.10.1885
256:
1994:Taylor, Nigel (2000).
1653:(3_suppl): 1105–1109.
398:
388:", which states that:
226:Person-positivity bias
208:An opposite factor of
140:Interpersonal distance
27:Type of cognitive bias
2682:Arab–Israeli conflict
2409:Social influence bias
2354:Out-group homogeneity
1647:Psychological Reports
985:Psychology and Health
831:John Wiley & Sons
131:Singular target focus
2324:Mere-exposure effect
2254:Extrinsic incentives
2200:Selective perception
733:Psychologica Belgica
470:Illusory superiority
109:Cognitive mechanisms
47:comparative optimism
43:unrealistic optimism
2549:Social desirability
2444:von Restorff effect
2319:Mean world syndrome
2294:Hostile attribution
1846:10.1038/nature06280
1838:2007Natur.450..102S
1319:10.5993/ajhb.34.2.7
628:"The optimism bias"
464:Illusion of control
290:Health consequences
239:Egocentric thinking
2464:Statistical biases
2242:Curse of knowledge
499:Positive illusions
458:Depressive realism
2790:Social psychology
2767:
2766:
2404:Social comparison
2185:Choice-supportive
1891:(10): 1885–1891,
1832:(7166): 102–105.
1783:Health Psychology
1411:Health Psychology
1354:Health Psychology
638:(23): R941–R945.
511:Self-serving bias
494:Positivity effect
449:Psychology portal
277:Underlying affect
210:perceived control
202:perceived control
195:perceived control
179:Self-presentation
164:perceived control
16:(Redirected from
2802:
2780:Cognitive biases
2564:Systematic error
2519:Omitted-variable
2434:Trait ascription
2274:Frog pond effect
2102:Cognitive biases
2086:
2079:
2072:
2063:
2045:
1991:
1989:
1983:. Archived from
1973:10.1037/h0022633
1958:
1936:
1935:
1916:
1910:
1909:
1900:
1880:
1874:
1873:
1821:
1815:
1814:
1774:
1765:
1764:
1748:
1738:
1732:
1731:
1713:
1704:
1703:
1685:
1679:
1678:
1642:
1636:
1635:
1599:
1593:
1592:
1588:978-0-19956314-2
1566:
1560:
1559:
1553:
1549:
1547:
1539:
1537:
1504:
1493:
1487:
1486:
1469:(7): 1359–1371.
1458:
1452:
1451:
1449:
1426:
1408:
1399:
1393:
1392:
1390:
1384:. Archived from
1351:
1342:
1331:
1330:
1302:
1293:
1292:
1272:
1259:
1258:
1240:
1231:
1225:
1224:
1196:
1190:
1189:
1169:
1156:
1155:
1135:
1124:
1123:
1105:
1085:
1070:
1063:
1057:
1056:
1027:
1016:
1015:
1013:
1007:. Archived from
982:
973:
954:
953:
935:
917:
908:
875:
874:
859:Health Education
854:
841:
827:
821:
820:
800:
791:
790:
774:
768:
767:
765:
759:. Archived from
758:
748:
730:
721:
666:
665:
647:
623:
614:
613:
588:(7): 2990–2998.
573:
567:
566:
550:
523:Wishful thinking
517:Toxic positivity
451:
446:
445:
444:
394:Hofstadter's law
386:Hofstadter's law
366:planning fallacy
330:planning fallacy
170:Self-enhancement
160:self-enhancement
21:
2810:
2809:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2763:
2744:
2718:
2583:
2458:
2439:Turkey illusion
2207:Compassion fade
2104:
2095:
2090:
2052:
2011:
2008:
2006:Further reading
1987:
1956:
1950:Rosenhan, David
1948:
1945:
1940:
1939:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1882:
1881:
1877:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1776:
1775:
1768:
1761:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1728:
1715:
1714:
1707:
1700:
1687:
1686:
1682:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1601:
1600:
1596:
1589:
1568:
1567:
1563:
1550:
1540:
1535:
1521:
1502:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1447:
1424:10.1.1.452.3853
1406:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1388:
1349:
1344:
1343:
1334:
1304:
1303:
1296:
1274:
1273:
1262:
1238:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1171:
1170:
1159:
1137:
1136:
1127:
1103:10.1.1.535.9244
1087:
1086:
1073:
1065:Taylor, Nigel,
1064:
1060:
1029:
1028:
1019:
1011:
980:
975:
974:
957:
915:
910:
909:
878:
856:
855:
844:
828:
824:
802:
801:
794:
776:
775:
771:
763:
746:10.1.1.507.9932
728:
723:
722:
669:
632:Current Biology
625:
624:
617:
575:
574:
570:
552:
551:
544:
539:
534:
488:Negativity bias
447:
442:
440:
437:
407:
374:
350:
334:Daniel Kahneman
325:
316:
292:
279:
259:
247:
241:
232:positivity bias
228:
219:
190:
181:
172:
155:
142:
133:
120:
111:
92:
76:
54:autistic people
35:optimistic bias
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2808:
2806:
2798:
2797:
2792:
2787:
2782:
2772:
2771:
2765:
2764:
2762:
2761:
2756:
2749:
2746:
2745:
2743:
2742:
2737:
2732:
2726:
2724:
2723:Bias reduction
2720:
2719:
2717:
2716:
2711:
2706:
2701:
2699:Political bias
2696:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2684:
2679:
2674:
2669:
2664:
2659:
2654:
2644:
2639:
2634:
2629:
2627:Infrastructure
2624:
2619:
2614:
2609:
2602:
2597:
2591:
2589:
2585:
2584:
2582:
2581:
2576:
2571:
2566:
2561:
2556:
2551:
2546:
2544:Self-selection
2541:
2536:
2531:
2526:
2521:
2516:
2511:
2506:
2501:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2484:
2479:
2474:
2468:
2466:
2460:
2459:
2457:
2456:
2451:
2446:
2441:
2436:
2431:
2426:
2421:
2416:
2411:
2406:
2401:
2396:
2391:
2386:
2381:
2379:Pro-innovation
2376:
2371:
2366:
2364:Overton window
2361:
2356:
2351:
2346:
2341:
2336:
2331:
2326:
2321:
2316:
2311:
2306:
2301:
2296:
2291:
2286:
2281:
2276:
2271:
2266:
2261:
2256:
2251:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2234:
2232:Dunning–Kruger
2229:
2224:
2219:
2214:
2209:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2192:
2187:
2182:
2177:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2160:
2155:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2146:Correspondence
2143:
2141:Actor–observer
2133:
2128:
2123:
2118:
2113:
2107:
2105:
2100:
2097:
2096:
2091:
2089:
2088:
2081:
2074:
2066:
2060:
2059:
2051:
2050:External links
2048:
2047:
2046:
2020:(3): 262–272.
2007:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1992:
1990:on 2016-05-24.
1944:
1941:
1938:
1937:
1927:(2): 223–230,
1911:
1875:
1816:
1789:(2): 132–140.
1766:
1760:978-3642256752
1759:
1733:
1726:
1705:
1699:978-3110565799
1698:
1680:
1637:
1610:(1): 105–115.
1594:
1587:
1561:
1552:|journal=
1520:978-0511809477
1519:
1488:
1453:
1417:(5): 344–354.
1394:
1391:on 2011-07-09.
1360:(2): 136–145.
1332:
1313:(2): 197–205.
1294:
1260:
1226:
1191:
1180:(2): 235–253.
1157:
1146:(3): 502–510.
1125:
1096:(5): 806–820.
1071:
1058:
1039:(6): 836–846.
1017:
1014:on 2016-10-10.
991:(4): 437–446.
955:
933:10.1.1.567.546
876:
865:(5): 228–234.
842:
822:
792:
769:
766:on 2011-11-25.
756:10.5334/pb.986
739:(1–2): 65–98.
667:
615:
568:
541:
540:
538:
535:
533:
532:
526:
520:
514:
508:
502:
496:
491:
485:
479:
473:
467:
461:
454:
453:
452:
436:
433:
414:Pessimism bias
406:
405:Pessimism bias
403:
373:
370:
353:Valence effect
349:
348:Valence effect
346:
324:
321:
315:
312:
291:
288:
278:
275:
270:
269:
266:
258:
255:
243:Main article:
240:
237:
227:
224:
218:
215:
189:
186:
180:
177:
171:
168:
154:
151:
141:
138:
132:
129:
119:
116:
110:
107:
91:
88:
75:
72:
67:valence effect
39:cognitive bias
26:
24:
18:Pessimism bias
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2807:
2796:
2793:
2791:
2788:
2786:
2783:
2781:
2778:
2777:
2775:
2760:
2757:
2755:
2751:
2750:
2747:
2741:
2738:
2736:
2733:
2731:
2728:
2727:
2725:
2721:
2715:
2712:
2710:
2707:
2705:
2702:
2700:
2697:
2695:
2692:
2688:
2685:
2683:
2680:
2678:
2677:United States
2675:
2673:
2670:
2668:
2665:
2663:
2660:
2658:
2655:
2653:
2652:False balance
2650:
2649:
2648:
2645:
2643:
2640:
2638:
2635:
2633:
2630:
2628:
2625:
2623:
2620:
2618:
2615:
2613:
2610:
2608:
2607:
2603:
2601:
2598:
2596:
2593:
2592:
2590:
2586:
2580:
2577:
2575:
2572:
2570:
2567:
2565:
2562:
2560:
2557:
2555:
2552:
2550:
2547:
2545:
2542:
2540:
2537:
2535:
2532:
2530:
2527:
2525:
2524:Participation
2522:
2520:
2517:
2515:
2512:
2510:
2507:
2505:
2502:
2500:
2497:
2493:
2492:Psychological
2490:
2489:
2488:
2485:
2483:
2480:
2478:
2475:
2473:
2470:
2469:
2467:
2465:
2461:
2455:
2452:
2450:
2447:
2445:
2442:
2440:
2437:
2435:
2432:
2430:
2427:
2425:
2422:
2420:
2417:
2415:
2412:
2410:
2407:
2405:
2402:
2400:
2397:
2395:
2392:
2390:
2387:
2385:
2382:
2380:
2377:
2375:
2372:
2370:
2367:
2365:
2362:
2360:
2357:
2355:
2352:
2350:
2347:
2345:
2342:
2340:
2337:
2335:
2332:
2330:
2327:
2325:
2322:
2320:
2317:
2315:
2312:
2310:
2307:
2305:
2302:
2300:
2297:
2295:
2292:
2290:
2287:
2285:
2282:
2280:
2277:
2275:
2272:
2270:
2267:
2265:
2262:
2260:
2259:Fading affect
2257:
2255:
2252:
2250:
2247:
2243:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2235:
2233:
2230:
2228:
2225:
2223:
2220:
2218:
2215:
2213:
2210:
2208:
2205:
2201:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2193:
2191:
2188:
2186:
2183:
2181:
2178:
2176:
2173:
2169:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2161:
2159:
2156:
2154:
2151:
2147:
2144:
2142:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2134:
2132:
2129:
2127:
2124:
2122:
2119:
2117:
2114:
2112:
2109:
2108:
2106:
2103:
2098:
2094:
2087:
2082:
2080:
2075:
2073:
2068:
2067:
2064:
2057:
2054:
2053:
2049:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2010:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1946:
1942:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1915:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1899:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1879:
1876:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1820:
1817:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1773:
1771:
1767:
1762:
1756:
1752:
1747:
1746:
1737:
1734:
1729:
1723:
1719:
1712:
1710:
1706:
1701:
1695:
1691:
1684:
1681:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1641:
1638:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1598:
1595:
1590:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1565:
1562:
1557:
1545:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1501:
1500:
1492:
1489:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1457:
1454:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1405:
1398:
1395:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1348:
1341:
1339:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1301:
1299:
1295:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1271:
1269:
1267:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1252:
1249:(1): 92–107.
1248:
1244:
1237:
1230:
1227:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1195:
1192:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1168:
1166:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1134:
1132:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1084:
1082:
1080:
1078:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1062:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1026:
1024:
1022:
1018:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
979:
972:
970:
968:
966:
964:
962:
960:
956:
951:
947:
943:
939:
934:
929:
925:
921:
914:
907:
905:
903:
901:
899:
897:
895:
893:
891:
889:
887:
885:
883:
881:
877:
872:
868:
864:
860:
853:
851:
849:
847:
843:
840:
839:0-471-59224-2
836:
832:
826:
823:
818:
814:
810:
806:
799:
797:
793:
789:(1): 121–132.
788:
784:
780:
773:
770:
762:
757:
752:
747:
742:
738:
734:
727:
720:
718:
716:
714:
712:
710:
708:
706:
704:
702:
700:
698:
696:
694:
692:
690:
688:
686:
684:
682:
680:
678:
676:
674:
672:
668:
663:
659:
655:
651:
646:
641:
637:
633:
629:
622:
620:
616:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
572:
569:
564:
560:
556:
549:
547:
543:
536:
530:
527:
524:
521:
518:
515:
512:
509:
506:
503:
500:
497:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
480:
477:
476:Normalcy bias
474:
471:
468:
465:
462:
459:
456:
455:
450:
439:
434:
432:
430:
429:heart disease
426:
421:
419:
415:
411:
404:
402:
397:
395:
389:
387:
383:
378:
371:
369:
367:
361:
358:
354:
347:
345:
343:
339:
335:
331:
322:
320:
314:Neurosciences
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
289:
287:
284:
276:
274:
267:
264:
263:
262:
254:
250:
246:
238:
236:
233:
225:
223:
216:
214:
211:
206:
203:
198:
196:
187:
185:
178:
176:
169:
167:
165:
161:
152:
150:
146:
139:
137:
130:
128:
125:
117:
115:
108:
106:
103:
99:
97:
89:
87:
85:
81:
73:
71:
69:
68:
61:
57:
55:
50:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
31:Optimism bias
19:
2637:In education
2604:
2588:Other biases
2574:Verification
2559:Survivorship
2509:Non-response
2482:Healthy user
2424:Substitution
2399:Self-serving
2348:
2195:Confirmation
2163:Availability
2111:Acquiescence
2017:
2013:
1999:
1985:the original
1967:(1): 38–44.
1964:
1960:
1943:Bibliography
1924:
1920:
1914:
1888:
1884:
1878:
1829:
1825:
1819:
1786:
1782:
1744:
1736:
1717:
1689:
1683:
1650:
1646:
1640:
1607:
1603:
1597:
1570:
1564:
1498:
1491:
1466:
1462:
1456:
1414:
1410:
1397:
1386:the original
1357:
1353:
1310:
1306:
1280:
1276:
1246:
1242:
1229:
1207:(1): 45–52.
1204:
1200:
1194:
1177:
1173:
1143:
1139:
1093:
1089:
1066:
1061:
1036:
1032:
1009:the original
988:
984:
926:(1): 74–95.
923:
919:
862:
858:
825:
808:
804:
786:
782:
772:
761:the original
736:
732:
635:
631:
585:
581:
571:
562:
558:
423:People with
422:
413:
412:
408:
399:
391:
379:
375:
362:
352:
351:
338:Amos Tversky
326:
317:
308:
304:
300:
297:
293:
280:
271:
260:
251:
248:
229:
220:
207:
199:
191:
182:
173:
156:
147:
143:
134:
121:
112:
104:
100:
93:
77:
65:
62:
58:
51:
46:
42:
34:
30:
29:
2785:Forecasting
2704:Publication
2657:Vietnam War
2504:Length time
2487:Information
2429:Time-saving
2289:Horn effect
2279:Halo effect
2227:Distinction
2136:Attribution
2131:Attentional
1283:(1): 9–52.
565:(1): 11–15.
382:recursively
344:overspend.
342:megaproject
2774:Categories
2667:South Asia
2642:Liking gap
2454:In animals
2419:Status quo
2334:Negativity
2237:Egocentric
2212:Congruence
2190:Commitment
2180:Blind spot
2168:Mean world
2158:Automation
1727:0975584200
1483:10806/1393
811:(1): 1–8.
537:References
425:depression
418:exaggerate
2735:Debiasing
2714:White hat
2709:Reporting
2622:Inductive
2539:Selection
2499:Lead time
2472:Estimator
2449:Zero-risk
2414:Spotlight
2394:Restraint
2384:Proximity
2369:Precision
2329:Narrative
2284:Hindsight
2269:Frequency
2249:Emotional
2222:Declinism
2153:Authority
2126:Anchoring
2116:Ambiguity
1854:0028-0836
1554:ignored (
1544:cite book
1419:CiteSeerX
1098:CiteSeerX
1053:146244253
1005:144020132
928:CiteSeerX
741:CiteSeerX
654:0960-9822
610:254571982
90:Measuring
80:cognitive
2795:Optimism
2632:Inherent
2595:Academic
2569:Systemic
2554:Spectrum
2534:Sampling
2514:Observer
2477:Forecast
2389:Response
2349:Optimism
2344:Omission
2339:Normalcy
2309:In-group
2304:Implicit
2217:Cultural
2121:Affinity
2042:27425683
2034:19444704
1907:15465987
1862:17960136
1811:25474023
1675:10210392
1667:12931926
1632:38200574
1624:21745029
1533:Archived
1529:17835457
1445:Archived
1374:17385964
1327:19814599
1120:14051760
950:30461688
662:22153158
602:27757736
435:See also
384:worded "
2754:General
2752:Lists:
2687:Ukraine
2612:Funding
2374:Present
2359:Outcome
2264:Framing
1981:5902075
1870:4332792
1834:Bibcode
1803:7789348
1441:8891713
1382:3022498
1221:2021403
357:valence
245:Egotism
230:Person-
74:Factors
2759:Memory
2672:Sweden
2662:Norway
2529:Recall
2299:Impact
2175:Belief
2093:Biases
2040:
2032:
1979:
1905:
1868:
1860:
1852:
1826:Nature
1809:
1801:
1757:
1724:
1696:
1673:
1665:
1630:
1622:
1585:
1527:
1517:
1439:
1421:
1380:
1372:
1325:
1219:
1118:
1100:
1051:
1003:
948:
930:
837:
743:
660:
652:
608:
600:
283:affect
84:affect
2647:Media
2617:FUTON
2038:S2CID
1988:(PDF)
1957:(PDF)
1866:S2CID
1807:S2CID
1671:S2CID
1628:S2CID
1536:(PDF)
1503:(PDF)
1448:(PDF)
1407:(PDF)
1389:(PDF)
1378:S2CID
1350:(PDF)
1239:(PDF)
1116:S2CID
1049:S2CID
1012:(PDF)
1001:S2CID
981:(PDF)
946:S2CID
916:(PDF)
764:(PDF)
729:(PDF)
606:S2CID
64:(the
37:is a
2030:PMID
1977:PMID
1903:PMID
1858:PMID
1850:ISSN
1799:PMID
1755:ISBN
1722:ISBN
1694:ISBN
1663:PMID
1620:PMID
1583:ISBN
1556:help
1525:PMID
1515:ISBN
1437:PMID
1370:PMID
1323:PMID
1217:PMID
835:ISBN
658:PMID
650:ISSN
598:PMID
336:and
96:risk
2694:Net
2579:Wet
2022:doi
1969:doi
1929:doi
1893:doi
1889:161
1842:doi
1830:450
1791:doi
1655:doi
1612:doi
1575:doi
1507:doi
1479:hdl
1471:doi
1429:doi
1362:doi
1315:doi
1285:doi
1251:doi
1209:doi
1182:doi
1148:doi
1108:doi
1041:doi
993:doi
938:doi
867:doi
863:101
813:doi
751:doi
640:doi
590:doi
45:or
33:or
2776::
2036:.
2028:.
2018:14
2016:.
1975:.
1963:.
1959:.
1923:,
1901:,
1887:,
1864:.
1856:.
1848:.
1840:.
1828:.
1805:.
1797:.
1787:14
1785:.
1781:.
1769:^
1753:.
1751:95
1708:^
1669:.
1661:.
1651:92
1649:.
1626:.
1618:.
1608:17
1606:.
1581:.
1548::
1546:}}
1542:{{
1531:.
1523:.
1513:.
1477:.
1467:41
1465:.
1443:.
1435:.
1427:.
1415:15
1413:.
1409:.
1376:.
1368:.
1358:26
1356:.
1352:.
1335:^
1321:.
1311:34
1309:.
1297:^
1281:15
1279:.
1263:^
1247:21
1245:.
1241:.
1215:.
1205:23
1203:.
1178:30
1176:.
1160:^
1144:50
1142:.
1128:^
1114:.
1106:.
1094:39
1092:.
1074:^
1047:.
1037:28
1035:.
1020:^
999:.
989:17
987:.
983:.
958:^
944:.
936:.
922:.
918:.
879:^
861:.
845:^
809:15
807:.
795:^
787:11
785:.
781:.
749:.
737:42
735:.
731:.
670:^
656:.
648:.
636:21
634:.
630:.
618:^
604:.
596:.
586:49
584:.
580:.
561:.
557:.
545:^
166:.
49:.
2085:e
2078:t
2071:v
2044:.
2024::
1971::
1965:3
1931::
1925:1
1895::
1872:.
1844::
1836::
1813:.
1793::
1763:.
1730:.
1702:.
1677:.
1657::
1634:.
1614::
1591:.
1577::
1558:)
1509::
1485:.
1481::
1473::
1431::
1364::
1329:.
1317::
1291:.
1287::
1257:.
1253::
1223:.
1211::
1188:.
1184::
1154:.
1150::
1122:.
1110::
1055:.
1043::
995::
952:.
940::
924:5
873:.
869::
819:.
815::
753::
664:.
642::
612:.
592::
563:8
396:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.