This thesis presents findings from an online experiment aimed at evaluating individuals' attitudes towards their own cognitive biases that lead to objective mistakes. In a number of incentivized decision problems, a participant in the experiment might make a mistake and choose a dominated lottery (FOSD lottery), which is likely to result from a particular heuristic or cognitive bias. In this case, she is then confronted with her error under one of two treatments: a confrontation with an explanation only regarding the mistake or one with the addition of the supposed mechanism (bias). Following this explanation, her comfort level with her choice is measured. A bias that acted as a mechanism for the observed error could be considered advantageous (i.e., useful given alternative costs) or disadvantageous (i.e., mostly harmful) in other decision-making scenarios encountered during one's lifetime. Consequently, the perception of cognitive biases is subjective and may vary among decision makers, who may emphasize either the positive or negative aspects of such biases. The proposed methodology allows to determine whether these biases are perceived as useful rules of thumb, despite leading to a dominated lottery choice in that particular context, or unfavorable.Results revealed significant differences between the two treatments and across five different decision problems. Interestingly, the results showed that in only 60% of the cases, the participants felt uneasy about their mistakes. In the remaining instances, the participants demonstrated either indifference or a sense of comfort with their choice of a dominated lottery. The net effect of providing information on the cognitive biases that presumably lead to the mistakes, measured as the difference between treatments, revealed a negative perception of the mechanism behind the error in one problem, contentment with the mechanism for another, and no significant effect for the remaining biases.