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.

The Power of Sequence

2021 ◽  
pp. 309-326
Author(s):  
Christopher Brett Jaeger ◽  
Jennifer S. Trueblood
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rational Choice ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Choice Architecture ◽  
Intellectual Origins ◽  
Rational Decisions

Researchers have documented numerous cognitive biases that are difficult to reconcile with rational choice theory. But is there a more general set of decision-making rules that might account for these cognitive biases and ‘rational’ decisions alike? Psychologists in search of such rules have developed a theory of quantum decision making. This chapter introduces quantum decision making to a legal audience, explains its intellectual origins, and identifies some contexts in which it provides useful tools for legal theorists. Using the example of a juror evaluating a criminal case, the chapter illustrates how quantum decision making explains and predicts phenomena that are difficult to reconcile with other theories of choice. More generally, quantum decision making highlights the importance of sequence in shaping judgments and decisions—and thus, its importance in law’s choice architecture.

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.

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.

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.

Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 1775-1799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Fonseca Costa ◽  
Francisval de Melo Carvalho ◽  
Bruno César de Melo Moreira ◽  
José Willer do Prado
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Behavioral Finance ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Anchoring Effect

scholarly journals How Behavioral Economics and Nudges Could Help Diminish Irrationality in Suicide-Related Decisions

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian W. Bauer ◽  
Daniel W. Capron
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Suicide Attempt ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Suicide Prevention ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Computational Power ◽  
Behavioral Economic ◽  
New Evidence

People regularly make decisions that are not aligned with their own self-interests. These irrational decisions often stem from humans having bounded rationality (e.g., limited computational power), which produces reliable cognitive biases that occur outside of people’s awareness and influences the decisions people make. There are many important decisions leading up to a suicide attempt, and it is likely that these same biases exist within suicide-related decisions. This article presents an argument for the likely existence of cognitive biases within suicide-related decision making and how they may influence people to make irrational decisions. In addition, this article provides new evidence for using a behavioral economic intervention—nudges—as a potential way to combat rising suicide rates. We explore how nudges can help increase means safety, disseminate suicide prevention skills/materials, diminish well-known biases (e.g., confirmation bias), and uncover biases that may be occurring when making suicide-related decisions.

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.

Personality Traits and Cognitive Biases

2018 ◽  
pp. 133-163
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
The Other ◽  
Personality Theory ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Relationship

Personality plays an important role in determining one's cognitive style, having a strong impact on the decision making of each person. Personality is a set of traits and qualities that form how somebody is, and it distinguishes us from others. At present, the most widely accepted personality theory is the big five factor, where personality is divided into five large traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. These traits are independent of each other. On the other hand, several personality traits have been more strongly associated with psychopathology. Therefore, personality traits would be related to the production of several cognitive biases in all people because personality influences our own beliefs, and these can guide us to display certain types of biases. This chapter delves into the relationship between personality traits (especially openness, neuroticism, extroversion, and schizotypy) and cognitive biases.

scholarly journals Confirmation Bias Estimation from Electroencephalography with Machine Learning

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-77
Author(s):  
Micah N. Villarreal ◽  
Alexander J. Kamrud ◽  
Brett J. Borghetti
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Supervised Machine Learning ◽  
Bias Estimation ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Behavioral Evidence ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
The Relationship

Cognitive biases are known to affect human decision making and can have disastrous effects in the fast-paced environments of military operators. Traditionally, post-hoc behavioral analysis is used to measure the level of bias in a decision. However, these techniques can be hindered by subjective factors and cannot be collected in real-time. This pilot study collects behavior patterns and physiological signals present during biased and unbiased decision-making. Supervised machine learning models are trained to find the relationship between Electroencephalography (EEG) signals and behavioral evidence of cognitive bias. Once trained, the models should infer the presence of confirmation bias during decision-making using only EEG - without the interruptions or the subjective nature of traditional confirmation bias estimation techniques.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document