In addition, whenever studying cognitive bias, a must is to take into account attentional bias in relation to attentional strategy. Objective measures of attentional strategy during focussed versus divided attention and during passive attention do differ in terms both in terms of behavioral AND brain wave measures. You will find more details in my papers on ATTENTION and attentional stratefies - see my papers on my site.  I will be pleased to provide more answers to your questions, Jacinthe Baribeau

The Hartman Value Profile measures a respondent's emotional bias, or valence, towards each of the three dimensions of the Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Systemic. To find out a bit more about this instrument, you can visit: www.hartmaninstitute.org, or get back to me and I'll be glad to share with you some of the work that formal axiologists are doing to measure cognitive habit patterns, including valences. Cliff

There are as many empirical instruments to measure cognitive biases as there are cognitive biases. So first narrow your question to a bias that interests you.

Thank you All,  I appreciate your inputs. They are very helpful. 

I am trying to study the cognitive biases from the perspective of consumer decision making. 

Luke, Thank, I found  IATs helpful in finding the "strength of association" and I am trying to understand this more. Especially, if any specific IAT can help me determine  a specific cognitive bias, let's say; status quo bias. 

Cliff, thank you the information on the Hartman's VP measures.  It appears very close to what I am after,  This also stems other curiosity such as how this can be used to detect a particular bias. Are you aware of any work which does that? 

John, you are right about zeroing in to some of the biases. Although part of my search is to find the biases and their related empirical work which affects the most in decision making process. Wondering if there are such a list?

Thank you again.

Regards,

Jay

 Here's an abstract of a paper I'm nearly finished.  I my opinian every second of perception is biased by a host of context and other prior states. Most are essential for everyday living. Some, the ones most studied today, are harmful to other people.

***

Proception: How Context Bias Enhances Word Recognition Speed and Accuracy

By Biasing Neural Attractor Networks in Recognition Pathways   

:

John S. Antrobus1, Yusuke Shono2, Bala Sundaram3, Chaim Y. Tarshish1 and ….

1 City University of New York, 2Claremont Graduate University

3Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA

Abstract

      Cognitive structures of the brain exploit recent context-object associations in order to facilitate and even anticipate recognition of the next word or object.  The utility of this context-appropriate expectation is substantial savings in recognition time/accuracy.  Repetition priming, the facilitating effect of recent reading of a word, the prime, on recognition of the same word, as target, is a convenient form of context-based facilitation for laboratory study. Facilitation is generally attributed to lowered word recognition thresholds. Recent work suggests that the lowered thresholds may be a bias effect, a criterion shift in favor of the primed word, as represented by signal detection theory. In a normal recognition environment, this bias would produce a zero-sum-gain in accuracy.  Paradoxically, however, the bias becomes de-facto sensitivity because the occurrence of the prime word implies the onset of a temporary time-space window, within which the probability of the primed word’s reoccurrence is substantially raised – sometimes 1000 fold.  Context-Biased Recognition Accuracy and Speed: Perception, Attractor, Leabra Model (CBRAS:PALM) shows how this anticipatory bias, or proception, of the next word is accomplished with recurrent neural network connections between temporal cortex lexical word and frontal and prefrontal cortex association networks. CBRAS:PALM  also offers a basis for modeling other sources of recognition facilitation such as syntax, semantic contexts.