Center for Behavioral Decisions (CBD)’s Post

🚀 DeepSeek’s Rapid Rise: A Behavioral Science Breakdown In just two weeks since its Jan 15, 2025 launch, DeepSeek hit 5–6M users and topped the App Store in 57 countries—even outpacing ChatGPT at times. 📈 But why did it take off so fast? 🔹 Novelty Bias – We’re wired to be drawn to what’s fresh and groundbreaking. 🔹 Social Proof – If everyone is talking about it, we want to try it. 🔹 Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) – No one wants to fall behind in fast-moving tech. 💡 Takeaway: The success of AI tools like DeepSeek and ChatGPT isn’t just about tech—it’s also about understanding human psychology. 📖 Read our latest blog for the full breakdown: https://lnkd.in/dkzt4-fr What other behavioral factors do you think drive AI adoption? Drop your thoughts below! ⬇️ #BehavioralScience #AI #DeepSeek #ChatGPT #DecisionScience #Marketing #Innovation

  • logo, company name
Abdulaziz Al-Ruwaitea, Ph.D.

Cognitive Biases | Public-Policy | Behavioral Economics| Entrepreneurship | Organizational Behavior

2mo

While the fear of missing out and social proof have solid grounds here, I find myself begging to differ with novelty bias. First, novelty bias is one of those cognitive bias that are quite not yet solidified in the literature, meaning that empirical evidence is yet to come in order to rank this bias as one of the evidence based biases that has been proven through thoughtful and thorough examination as in the case of overconfidence, the illusion of control, and confirmation bias. This is really an issue of taxonomy that the cognitive biases literature suffers from, and scholars do not shy away from admitting that. Some biases are purely motivational, others can be a source of memeory, and others only occur in social settings. That’s one taxonomy that gained momentum lately. Another one is differentiating between empirically proven biases and others that are purely theoretical. The most liberal estimations of biases count to 180+ but if you really dig just a bit deeper you will find that most of them overlap, some literally are the same but stem from different fields of interest, and many are considered prerequisites to others. The true count of biases that are empirically proven won’t span over 40, generously speaking.

Pinelopi Skotida

Behavioural Insights Advisor at Ofcom | MSc Behavioural Economics

2mo

🧑💻 Bandwagon effect- people use or start using AI tools because other people are doing it

Sam Zimmerman

Consultant | Driving Client Engagement in Saas | Customer Success Enthusiast | Passionate about Health & Wellness Transformation

2mo

Not to mention the ease of access (1 click of a button), and the value prop of enhanced performance (for free)!

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics