Literature DB >> 32508089

Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias.

Itiel E Dror1.   

Abstract

Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to "bad apples", experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32508089     DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Chem        ISSN: 0003-2700            Impact factor:   6.986


  21 in total

Review 1.  See Change: Overcoming Anti-Black Racism in Health Systems.

Authors:  Adedoyin Eisape; André Nogueira
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-06-02

2.  A scenario for writing creative scenarios.

Authors:  Michael D Murphy; Don R Day
Journal:  Socioecol Pract Res       Date:  2021-06-07

3.  The tendency to stop collecting information is linked to illusions of causality.

Authors:  María Manuela Moreno-Fernández; Fernando Blanco; Helena Matute
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  The effect of contextual information on decision-making in forensic toxicology.

Authors:  Hilary J Hamnett; Itiel E Dror
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 2.395

5.  (Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science.

Authors:  Itiel E Dror; Nicholas Scurich
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-09-06       Impact factor: 2.395

6.  Gaps in Measuring and Mitigating Implicit Bias in Healthcare.

Authors:  Sally A Arif; Jessica Schlotfeldt
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 5.810

7.  Letter to Editor.

Authors:  Hans Ditrich
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2021-11-27

8.  Translating Ultrasound into Clinical Practice for the Assessment of Swallowing and Laryngeal Function: A Speech and Language Pathology-Led Consensus Study.

Authors:  Jodi E Allen; Gemma Clunie; Joan K-Y Ma; Margaret Coffey; Katharina Winiker; Sally Richmond; Soren Y Lowell; Anna Volkmer
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 2.733

9.  Interpretation of DNA data within the context of UK forensic science - evaluation.

Authors:  Roberto Puch-Solis; Susan Pope
Journal:  Emerg Top Life Sci       Date:  2021-09-24

10.  Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions.

Authors:  Itiel Dror; Judy Melinek; Jonathan L Arden; Jeff Kukucka; Sarah Hawkins; Joye Carter; Daniel S Atherton
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 1.832

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.