Literature DB >> 17600097

Do people experience cognitive biases while searching for information?

Annie Y S Lau1, Enrico W Coiera.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test whether individuals experience cognitive biases whilst searching using information retrieval systems. Biases investigated are anchoring, order, exposure and reinforcement.
DESIGN: A retrospective analysis and a prospective experiment were conducted to investigate whether cognitive biases affect the way that documentary evidence is interpreted while searching online. The retrospective analysis was conducted on the search and decision behaviors of 75 clinicians (44 doctors, 31 nurses), answering questions for 8 clinical scenarios within 80 minutes in a controlled setting. The prospective study was conducted on 227 undergraduate students, who used the same search engine to answer two of six randomly assigned consumer health questions. MEASUREMENTS: Frequencies of correct answers pre- and post- search, and confidence in answers were collected. The impact of reading a document on the final decision was measured by the population likelihood ratio (LR) of the frequency of reading the document and the frequency of obtaining a correct answer. Documents with a LR > 1 were most likely to be associated with a correct answer, and those with a LR < 1 were most likely to be associated with an incorrect answer to a question. Agreement between a subject and the evidence they read was estimated by a concurrence rate, which measured the frequency that subjects' answers agreed with the likelihood ratios of a group of documents, normalized for document order, time exposure or reinforcement through repeated access. Serial position curves were plotted for the relationship between subjects' pre-search confidence, document order, the number of times and length of time a document was accessed, and concurrence with post-search answers. Chi-square analyses tested for the presence of biases, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test checked for equality of distribution of evidence in the comparison populations.
RESULTS: A person's prior belief (anchoring) has a significant impact on their post-search answer (retrospective: P < 0.001; prospective: P < 0.001). Documents accessed at different positions in a search session (order effect [retrospective: P = 0.76; prospective: P = 0.026]), and documents processed for different lengths of time (exposure effect [retrospective: P = 0.27; prospective: P = 0.0081]) also influenced decision post-search more than expected in the prospective experiment but not in the retrospective analysis. Reinforcement through repeated exposure to a document did not yield statistical differences in decision outcome post-search (retrospective: P = 0.31; prospective: P = 0.81).
CONCLUSION: People may experience anchoring, exposure and order biases while searching for information, and these biases may influence the quality of decision making during and after the use of information retrieval systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17600097      PMCID: PMC1975788          DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2411

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  16 in total

1.  Heuristics and biases: selected errors in clinical reasoning.

Authors:  A S Elstein
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 2.  Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision making: selective review of the cognitive literature.

Authors:  Arthur S Elstein; Alan Schwartz; Alan Schwarz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-03-23

3.  Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias.

Authors:  Pat Croskerry
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence.

Authors:  Ted J Kaptchuk
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-06-28

5.  Do online information retrieval systems help experienced clinicians answer clinical questions?

Authors:  Johanna I Westbrook; Enrico W Coiera; A Sophie Gosling
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2005-01-31       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Ubiquitous but unfinished: online information retrieval systems.

Authors:  William R Hersh
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Authors:  A Tversky; D Kahneman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  The effect of presentation order in clinical decision making.

Authors:  J P Cunnington; J M Turnbull; G Regehr; M Marriott; G R Norman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.893

9.  The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Gretchen B Chapman; Janet A Schwartz; George R Bergus
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Evidence-based patient choice and consumer health informatics in the Internet age.

Authors:  G Eysenbach; A R Jadad
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2001 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  12 in total

1.  Information needs, Infobutton Manager use, and satisfaction by clinician type: a case study.

Authors:  Sarah A Collins; Leanne M Currie; Suzanne Bakken; James J Cimino
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-10-24       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Can cognitive biases during consumer health information searches be reduced to improve decision making?

Authors:  Annie Y S Lau; Enrico W Coiera
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-10-24       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  The Unintended Consequences of Health Information Technology Revisited.

Authors:  E Coiera; J Ash; M Berg
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2016-11-10

4.  How online crowds influence the way individual consumers answer health questions: an online prospective study.

Authors:  A Y S Lau; T M Y Kwok; E Coiera
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  Information seeking and social support in online health communities: impact on patients' perceived empathy.

Authors:  Priya Nambisan
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Clinician search behaviors may be influenced by search engine design.

Authors:  Annie Y S Lau; Enrico Coiera; Tatjana Zrimec; Paul Compton
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Consumer health information seeking as hypothesis testing.

Authors:  Alla Keselman; Allen C Browne; David R Kaufman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Technology, cognition and error.

Authors:  Enrico Coiera
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 7.035

9.  Impact of web searching and social feedback on consumer decision making: a prospective online experiment.

Authors:  Annie Y S Lau; Enrico W Coiera
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Manipulating Google's Knowledge Graph Box to Counter Biased Information Processing During an Online Search on Vaccination: Application of a Technological Debiasing Strategy.

Authors:  Ramona Ludolph; Ahmed Allam; Peter J Schulz
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.