Overcoming Confirmation and Blind Spot Biases When Communicating Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Kenski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Process Information ◽  
Bias Blind Spot

This chapter focuses on two biases that lead people away from evaluating evidence and scientific studies impartially—confirmation bias and bias blind spot. The chapter first discusses different ways in which people process information and reviews the costs and benefits of utilizing cognitive shortcuts in decision making. Next, two common cognitive biases, confirmation bias and bias blind spot, are explained. Then the literature on “debiasing” is explored. Finally, the implications of confirmation bias and bias blind spot in the context of communicating about science are examined, and an agenda for future research on understanding and mitigating these biases is offered.

De-Biasing Legal Factfinders

2021 ◽  
pp. 395-410
Author(s):  
Frank Zenker
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Special Reference ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Needs ◽  
Base Rate Neglect ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Social Biases ◽  
Evidential Basis

This chapter examines the psychological studies of biases and de-biasing measures in human decision-making with special reference to adjudicative factfinding. Research shows that factfinders are prone to cognitive biases (such as anchoring, framing, base-rate neglect, and confirmation bias) as well as social biases. Driven by this research, multiple studies have examined the extent to which those biases can be mitigated by de-biasing measures like “consider the opposite” and “give reasons.” After a brief overview of the research, the author points to the problematic evidential basis and identifies future research needs, and concludes that empirical research on de-biasing measures has so far delivered less than one would hope for.

Confirmation bias in decision making for fingerprints, DNA and eyewitness evidence cannot be explained by cognitive style or thinking dispositions.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Edgcumbe
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Thinking Dispositions ◽  
Evaluation Of Evidence ◽  
Facial Composite

Pre-existing beliefs about the background or guilt of a suspect can bias the subsequent evaluation of evidence for forensic examiners and lay people alike. This biasing effect, called the confirmation bias, has influenced legal proceedings in prominent court cases such as that of Brandon Mayfield. Today many forensic providers attempt to train their examiners against these cognitive biases. Nine hundred and forty-two participants read a fictional criminal case and received either neutral, incriminating or exonerating evidence (fingerprint, eyewitness, or DNA) before providing an initial rating of guilt. Participants then viewed ambiguous evidence (alibi, facial composite, handwriting sample or informant statement) before providing a final rating of guilt. Final guilt ratings were higher for all evidence conditions (neutral, incriminating or exonerating) following exposure to the ambiguous evidence. This provides evidence that the confirmation bias influences the evaluation of evidence.

scholarly journals Measuring individual differences in cognitive biases: The Cognitive Bias Inventory

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Berthet ◽  
Vincent de Gardelle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Bias ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Temporal Stability ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
Wrong Answer ◽  
Outcome Bias

This article described the behavioral measurement of six classic cognitive biases (framing, availability, anchoring, overconfidence, hindsight/outcome bias, confirmation bias). Each measure showed a satisfactory level of reliability with regard both to internal consistency (mean Cronbach’s alpha = .77) and temporal stability (mean test-retest correlation = .71). Multivariate analysis supported the hypothesis that each cognitive bias captures specific decision-making processes as the six biases: (a) were virtually uncorrelated (mean correlation = .08), thus indicating no general decision-making competence factor, (b) were moderately correlated with other relevant constructs (the A-DMC components, cognitive ability, decision-making styles, and personality factors), (c) were more related to performance on a narrow domain of decision-making (the ability to overcome an intuitive wrong answer as measured by the CRT) than to the general success in real-life decision-making as measured by the Decision Outcomes Inventory (DOI). We introduce this set of behavioral tasks as the Cognitive Bias Inventory (CBI), a psychometric tool allowing for the reliable assessment of individual differences in six common, independent cognitive shortcuts. The CBI appears as a useful tool for future research on decision-making competence and how it relates to decision errors.

scholarly journals The Measurement of Individual Differences in Cognitive Biases: A Review and Improvement

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Berthet
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Generic Measures

Individual differences have been neglected in decision-making research on heuristics and cognitive biases. Addressing that issue requires having reliable measures. The author first reviewed the research on the measurement of individual differences in cognitive biases. While reliable measures of a dozen biases are currently available, our review revealed that some measures require improvement and measures of other key biases are still lacking (e.g., confirmation bias). We then conducted empirical work showing that adjustments produced a significant improvement of some measures and that confirmation bias can be reliably measured. Overall, our review and findings highlight that the measurement of individual differences in cognitive biases is still in its infancy. In particular, we suggest that contextualized (in addition to generic) measures need to be improved or developed.

Serious Efforts at Bias Reduction

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrienne Shaw ◽  
Kate Kenski ◽  
Jennifer Stromer-Galley ◽  
Rosa Mikeal Martey ◽  
Benjamin A. Clegg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Serious Games ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Digital Games ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Bias Reduction ◽  
Effective Learning ◽  
Training Video ◽  
Bias Blind Spot

Abstract. As research on serious games continues to grow, we investigate the efficacy of digital games to train enhanced decision making through understanding cognitive biases. This study investigates the ability of a 30-minute digital game as compared with a 30-minute video to teach people how to recognize and mitigate three cognitive biases: fundamental attribution error, confirmation bias, and bias blind spot. We investigate the effects of character customization on learning outcomes as compared with an assigned character. We use interviews to understand the qualitative differences between the conditions. Experimental results suggest that the game was more effective at teaching and mitigating cognitive biases than was the training video. Although interviews suggest players liked avatar customization, results of the experiment indicate that avatar customization had no significant effect on learning outcomes. This research provides information future designers can use to choose the best medium and affordances for the most effective learning outcomes on cognitive processes.

A Preliminary Investigation of Costs and Benefits in Dietary Decisions

2005 ◽  
Vol 49 (19) ◽  
pp. 1805-1809
Author(s):  
Danielle Paige Smith
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dietary Supplements ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Dietary Advice ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Likert Scales ◽  
Perceived Costs

This paper describes an exploratory study that examined the perceived costs and benefits and general attitudes toward dietary supplements and seeking a doctor's dietary advice. Thirty-five undergraduates completed a survey packet that used various methods to assessed attitudes toward dieting and obesity (i.e. Likert scales, cost-benefit generation, scenario-based decision tasks). Results generally replicate past work, in that participants were unsure about the safety and regulation of dietary supplements, and although physician's advice is important, they were unlikely to seek their doctor's advice prior to beginning to try and lose weight. Further, responses indicated a perception of few risks associated with seeking physician's advice; however, these appear to be weighted heavily when deciding on a dietary method based on the scenario decision-making task. The implications of these results on planned future research are discussed.

scholarly journals Cognitive Biases in Negotiation - Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 31-52
Author(s):  
Michał Chmielecki
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
New Research ◽  
And Behavior

AbstractObjective: The purpose of this paper is also to thoroughly review those studies in the management literature that focused on bias in negotiation and to ascertain a couple of new research trajectories that could be observed as the result. As a matter of fact, a human’s judgment making capacity and behavior could be greatly influenced by cognitive misperceptions thus affecting decisions in negotiations. Whilst Thompson (2006) analytically examined the effects of biased decision-making processes for negotiations, the intention of this paper is to fill the gap through a systematic assessment of the literature.Methodology: I have provided a theoretical background on decision makers’ cognition in this paper to provide context and introduce the research; after which we take a closer look at the literature and discuss its results. Based on this, I noted that limited research, with alternate results were done based on the interaction between biases bothering on mood, culture, personality as well as education and experience on the negotiators’ judgments. Finally, we suggest that future research trajectories might be on multilateral and integrative negotiations, the role of third parties and a better comprehension of the cognitive bias and how to rise above it in negotiations.Findings: Despite the fact that this topic is considered important, it is surprisingly under-researched. Author was able to identify the void and inadequacies of the literature identified in journal articles systemizing the intersection of negotiation studies, from cognitive biases studies, group decision making and from the decision making and judgment literature.Value Added: This paper showed that there are only a handful of papers that focus on why, how and when cognitive biases influence negotiation process.Recommendations: There is a great need for papers that focus on cognitive biases in the negotiation process.

Perilaku Investor Dalam Transaksi Saham di Pasar Modal

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-215
Author(s):  
Fahira Dhea Azzahra ◽  
Isni   Andrian ◽  
Kemas M. Husni Thamrin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Loss Aversion ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Behavioral Biases ◽  
Availability Bias

This study aims to analyzing the behavior of Palembang investors through cognitive biases and emotional biases that impacting investor’s decision making on stock transaction in the capital market. This decision making proxied by cognitive biases, there are overconfidence bias, represtentativeness bias, anchoring and adjustment bias, availability bias, illusion of control bias, and conservatism bias, also proxied by emotional biases there are self-control bias, optimism bias, loss aversion bias, dan status quo bias. The population of the study are investors whom became partners of securities, those listed in Indonesian Stock Exchange and the securities which stand only in Palembang region. There are 50 investors as sample of this study with purposive sampling as sampling method. The type data of this study is qualitative and the resources of data in this study is primary data with distributing questionnaire. Analyzing method in this study using multivariate analysis Structural Equation Model (SEM) and the result of this study shows that availability bias, conservatism bias, and loss aversion bias have significance effect to Palembang investor’s decision making in 2020. For future research could be able to take other samples from another big cities, as well as conducted research on the relationship between behavioral biases and financing or behavioral biases and health that including demographics and etc. 

Megaproject Decision Making and Management

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo Priemus ◽  
Bert van Wee
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Ethical Aspects ◽  
Democratic Quality ◽  
Pros And Cons

This chapter focuses on ethical and political aspects of megaproject decision making and management. More specifically, it focuses on ethical aspects of the impacts of megaprojects on society, the ethics of doing research into the pros and cons of megaprojects, the quality of estimates of the costs and benefits of megaprojects, and the democratic quality of the decision-making process. Avenues for future research are then suggested. An overall conclusion is that ethical aspects of megaprojects are very important for society, but the topic has not received a great deal of attention from researchers yet.

scholarly journals Using Design Thinking to improve Strategic Decisions during Collaborative Sensemaking

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikko KORIA ◽  
Ekaterina KOTINA ◽  
Sharon PRENDEVILLE
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Strategic Decision Making ◽  
Strategic Decisions ◽  
Cognitive Limitations ◽  
Collaborative Sensemaking

Human cognitive limitations affect strategic decision-making. One of such effects is emergence of cognitive biases, deviations from rationality in judgment. These biases can negatively influence an organisation's capability to capture and utilize new ideas, thus inhibiting innovation. Researchers have documented different strategies for mitigating cognitive biases – and many of them overlap with the ones emphasised in design thinking. However, research so far does not offer any specific “recipes” for mitigation of cognitive biases. This paper links together research on challenges of strategic decision-making, cognitive biases and design thinking. The paper investigates the effects of applying design-thinking tool in collaborative sensemaking stage, within a small business team, aiming to mitigate confirmation bias. The study indicated that newly introduced design-thinking tools did not have the expected positive influence on decision-making. The research contributes to the field by developing a new framework on how to identify and mitigate confirmation bias in strategic decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document