Confirmation Bias

Author(s):  
Sara E. Gorman ◽  
Jack M. Gorman

One of America’s greatest scientists summarized confirmation bias well when he quipped, “I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it.”That scientist was the great Hall of Famer and New York Yankee baseball player Yogi Berra. How do we know Yogi Berra said that? One of us once heard someone say that he did, and it sounds like the kind of thing that has been attributed to him. Of course, there are those who say that Yogi didn’t say many of the things attributed to him and that there are actually perfectly logical explanations for some of the seemingly nonsensical statements he allegedly did utter. But we don’t care about any of that. We love the line, it makes our point well, and we are going to stick to the Yogi attribu¬tion no matter what kind of disconfirming evidence crops up. As Yogi might have said, “When you come to a piece of evidence that doesn’t agree with what you already believe, tear it to shreds and then ignore it.” Confirmation bias refers to our tendency to attend only to information that agrees with what we already think is true. Notice that we did not simply say that this bias involves ignoring evidence that is incompatible with our beliefs but rather that it is an active process in which we selectively pay attention to those things that confirm our hypotheses. Confirmation bias is responsible for not only a great deal of denial of scientific evidence but also the actual generation and maintenance of incorrect scientific information. That is, scientists, doctors, and public health experts are as prone as anyone else is to “seeing what we believe,” making it especially difficult to help people sort out what is true science from the mistakes and outright fabrications. As we will see, confirmation bias is strongly rooted in primitive needs and emotion and therefore not amenable to correction merely by reciting facts. Although confirmation bias is irrational in the sense that it does not take into consideration evidence, it is still frequently adaptive and even necessary.

2021 ◽  
pp. 125-162
Author(s):  
Sara E. Gorman ◽  
Jack M. Gorman

This chapter examines confirmation bias, which refers to people’s tendency to attend only to information that agrees with what they already think is true. Confirmation bias is responsible for not only a great deal of denial of scientific evidence but also the actual generation and maintenance of incorrect scientific information. That is, scientific and medical professionals are as prone as anyone else is to “seeing what we believe,” making it especially difficult to help people sort out what is true science from the mistakes and outright fabrications. The chapter demonstrates how confirmation bias, although a highly adaptive human trait, often causes scientific misperceptions due to resistance to the often counterintuitive disconfirmation process of scientific inquiry. It then proposes some ways of countering confirmation bias.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marleen Bekker

Abstract The decision-making is always a complex process that should be based on best available scientific evidence and experts judgments. COVID-19 pandemic has added more complexity to this process, demanding a fluid, accurate and rapid respond from public health experts and science. This panellist together with the rest of speakers will help us to revise this process to identify possible gaps and space of future improvement.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  

Abstract Public health research aims to change the world, or at least contribute to the development of healthier and more equitable societies. However, the availability of health information does not inherently lead to its increased use in policy and decision-making. Significant gap remains between the knowledge of public health researchers and the actions taken by decision-makers. Various tools and mechanisms can help to increase the use of scientific evidence in policy development by making policymakers appreciate, understand and incorporate such scientific information into policy decisions. As part of this process, it is crucial that researchers and public health practitioners acquire the ability to translate their knowledge and become skilled on communicating the evidence effectively. To this aim, we will present firstly a WHO approach for that on the basis of EVIPNet Europe. Member countries have benefited of EVIPNet Europe’s capacity building efforts, its training workshops, coaching and mentoring schemes, leading to increased knowledge and skills in view of identifying, accessing, appraising, synthesizing and communicating the best available evidence. The presentation will focus on the ways to trigger tangible changes at policy and legislative levels. The second presentation will give more specific information about the process of real-life applications. Main question will be “How to advocate scientific evidence to decision-makers in the frame of evidence-informed policy-making?”. The presentation will help the participants to analyze to whom they are targeting, what their interests are and how to communicate scientific information to a decision-maker effectively. Last but not least, common challenges of evidence-informed policy-making process in health care and ways to tackle them will be presented. By doing so, special attention will be paid to the methodologies for joint fact-finding, responsive evaluation and citizen science. The workshop will engage participants interactively and leave time for answering their questions at the end. Key messages Public health professionals can influence health policies, if they learn strategies in communicating scientific evidence to decision-makers effectively. Providing correct skills to researchers when communicating about and advocating for the scientific evidence with policymakers will enhance the impact of evidence on policy making.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeo Yasu

BACKGROUND Serious public health problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can cause an infodemic. Sources of information that may cause an infodemic include social networking services; YouTube, which consists of content created and uploaded by individuals, is one such source. OBJECTIVE To survey the content and changes in YouTube videos that present public health information about COVID-19 in Japan. METHODS We surveyed YouTube content regarding public health information pertaining to COVID-19 in Japan. YouTube searches were performed on March 6, 2020 (before the state of emergency), April 14 (during the state of emergency), and May 27 (after the state of emergency was lifted), with 136, 113, and 140 sample videos evaluated, respectively. The main outcome measures were: (1) The total number of views for each video, (2) video content, and (3) the usefulness of the video. RESULTS In the 100 most viewed YouTube videos during the three periods, the number of videos on public health information in March was significantly higher than in May (p = .02). Of the 331 unique videos, 9.1% (n = 30) were released by healthcare professionals. Useful videos providing public health information about the prevention of the spread of infection comprised only 13.0% of the sample but were viewed significantly more often than not useful videos (p = .006). CONCLUSIONS Individuals need to take care when obtaining information from YouTube before or early in a pandemic, during which time scientific evidence is scarce.


2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107134
Author(s):  
Thana Cristina de Campos-Rudinsky ◽  
Eduardo Undurraga

Although empirical evidence may provide a much desired sense of certainty amidst a pandemic characterised by uncertainty, the vast gamut of available COVID-19 data, including misinformation, has instead increased confusion and distrust in authorities’ decisions. One key lesson we have been gradually learning from the COVID-19 pandemic is that the availability of empirical data and scientific evidence alone do not automatically lead to good decisions. Good decision-making in public health policy, this paper argues, does depend on the availability of reliable data and rigorous analyses, but depends above all on sound ethical reasoning that ascribes value and normative judgement to empirical facts.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s311-s312
Author(s):  
Kelsie Cowman ◽  
Belinda Ostrowsky ◽  
Susan Seo ◽  
Victor Chen ◽  
Rachel Bartash ◽  
...  

Background: New York City is a gateway for emerging pathogens and global threats. In 2013, faculty from Montefiore Medical Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering developed a free half-day workshop for postgraduate trainees in antimicrobial stewardship (AS), infection prevention (IP), hospital epidemiology, and public health. This annual workshop, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of New York (IDSNY), incorporates case studies and expert panel discussions on timely topics such as Ebola, Candida auris, Clostridiodes difficile, measles, nosocomial influenza, drug shortages, and AS/IP “big data.” Methods: From 2013 through 2017, the workshop involved 10–15 interactive AS/IP cases with audience response questions and panel discussions. In 2018–2019, based on feedback, the format was revised to emphasize breakout sessions in which participants actively practiced AS/IP tools, (eg, medication utilization evaluations, epidemiologic curves, and performance improvement devices). Examples of 2018–2019 cases are shown in Figure 1. A pre- and postseminar paper survey was conducted yearly to understand baseline training in AS/IP, desire for future AS/IP careers, and self-reported effectiveness of the workshop. Results: Initially, the primary audience was NYC ID fellows. From 2018 onward, we opened enrollment to pharmacy residents. Approximately 45 NYC ID fellows were eligible for the course each year. Results from 2013 to 2016 surveys were reported previously (Fig. 2). There were 32 attendees in 2018, 42 in 2019. The survey response rate was 88% in 2018 and 95% in 2019, with 68 (92%) total participants. Most participants had received previous training in IP (82%) and AS (94%) (Fig. 3). Most participants reported that the program was a good supplement to their ID training (98%) and that case studies were an effective means of learning IP (100%) and AS (98%). Furthermore, 92% stated they would like additional AS/IP training, and many since 2013 have requested a full-day course. Self-reported interest in future involvement in AS/IP increased after the workshop: IP, 68%–83% (P =.04) and AS, 88%–91% (P = .61). Conclusions: Most trainees reported satisfaction with the workshop and case-study learning method; interest in future AS/IP careers increased after the seminar. We intend to explore Funding: to expand to a full-day program for all NYC postgraduate trainees and AS/IP junior faculty. As such, we hope to obtain the endorsement of professional societies such as SHEA. This workshop could address a crucial educational gap in AS/IP postgraduate training and help sustain our future workforce.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 435-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank A. Chervenak ◽  
Amos Grünebaum ◽  
Eran Bornstein ◽  
Shane Wasden ◽  
Adi Katz ◽  
...  

AbstractThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed great demands on many hospitals to maximize their capacity to care for affected patients. The requirement to reassign space has created challenges for obstetric services. We describe the nature of that challenge for an obstetric service in New York City. This experience raised an ethical challenge: whether it would be consistent with professional integrity to respond to a public health emergency with a plan for obstetric services that would create an increased risk of rare maternal mortality. We answered this question using the conceptual tools of professional ethics in obstetrics, especially the professional virtue of integrity. A public health emergency requires frameshifting from an individual-patient perspective to a population-based perspective. We show that an individual-patient-based, beneficence-based deliberative clinical judgment is not an adequate basis for organizational policy in response to a public health emergency. Instead, physicians, especially those in leadership positions, must frameshift to population-based clinical ethical judgment that focuses on reduction of mortality as much as possible in the entire population of patients served by a healthcare organization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document