The Bias in researching cognitive bias

Norman, Geoff

doi:10.1007/s10459-014-9517-5

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 18 But critics of this approach, including those involved in academic health sciences research, question whether it properly assigns thought rationality and consequently lacks validity for real-world decision-making. 19 Therefore, the use of cognitive bias methodology to solve a problem as complex as inequality ultimately might be unsuccessful, and this possibility seems to be supported by the literature, in which implicit association testing (IAT) has been shown to be such a poor predictor of discriminatory behaviour and decision-making that its construct validity has been questioned. 20 In addition, studies of unconscious bias training (UBT) have shown that it is mostly ineffective at improving equity, 21 , 22 and in some instances, worsens discrimination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equity and Game-Theory Strategies to Promote Gender Diversity and Inclusion in an Academic Health Science Centre

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equity and Game-Theory Strategies to Promote Gender Diversity and Inclusion in an Academic Health Science Centre

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Behavioral psychologists have found through extensive experimental investigations that actual decisions made by humans under conditions of uncertainty deviate from the predicted behavior of expected utility theory, and that people in decision making tend to exhibit limited rationality, which is known as cognitive bias ( Hertel and Mathews, 2011 ). There are various human cognitive biases, some of them are transient and could trigger more efficient actions at the moment; some of them may cause perception biases due to individuals’ limited information processing ability and their incompleteness of information, which may affect individuals’ decision-making ( Norman, 2014 ; Landucci and Lamperti, 2021 ; Xu et al, 2021 ). Cognitive bias is a subjective feeling of individuals affected by information.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive bias toward the Internet: The causes of adolescents’ Internet addiction under parents’ self-affirmation consciousness

Zhou

Zhu²,

Zhou³

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Internet plays a crucial part in the adolescent life. However, as a product of modernization, the Internet has brought a lifestyle different from that of our parents who tend to regard excessive exposure to the Internet as a manifestation of the adolescent Internet addiction. The cognitive bias against the Internet seem to have been arisen among the parents. Under the theoretical framework of self-efficacy and empathy, this study adopts PLS-SEM to analyze the contributing factors of the adolescent Internet addiction from the perspective of self-affirmation consciousness of parents. The result demonstrates that self-affirmation consciousness has a significant positive effect on the empathy process; the empathy process and self-affirmation have a significant positive effect on cognitive bias; and the empathy process acts as a mediator between self-affirmation and cognitive bias. To sum up, through the investigation of the causes of adolescent Internet addiction, this study explores the formation process of parents’ cognitive bias toward the Internet under the influence of self-affirmation consciousness, verifying the practical effects of empathy in the process of promoting rational thinking of parents toward the Internet and adolescent Internet use, and at the same time promoting the harmonious development of parent–child relationships to a certain extent.

show abstract

“…The term “cognitive biases plus (+)” was proposed for the following reasons: (1) cognition is inextricably linked, both neurally and functionally, with emotion; (2) cognitive biases, conflicts of interest (CoIs), ethical violations, and fallacies frequently co‐occur in various combinations to compromise rational thinking, discourse, and actions; (3) all have complex cognitive underpinnings; (4) some are evolutionary; and (5) all are likely influenced by family, professional, organizational, and prevalent social cultures. Thus, plus emphasizes that cognitive biases are not the only explanation for flawed decisions, the factors listed in Table being among them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gating the holes in the Swiss cheese (part I): Expanding professor Reason's model for patient safety

Seshia

Young

Makhinson

et al. 2017

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAlthough patient safety has improved steadily, harm remains a substantial global challenge. Additionally, safety needs to be ensured not only in hospitals but also across the continuum of care. Better understanding of the complex cognitive factors influencing health care–related decisions and organizational cultures could lead to more rational approaches, and thereby to further improvement.HypothesisA model integrating the concepts underlying Reason's Swiss cheese theory and the cognitive‐affective biases plus cascade could advance the understanding of cognitive‐affective processes that underlie decisions and organizational cultures across the continuum of care.MethodsThematic analysis, qualitative information from several sources being used to support argumentation.Discussion Complex covert cognitive phenomena underlie decisions influencing health care. In the integrated model, the Swiss cheese slices represent dynamic cognitive‐affective (mental) gates: Reason's successive layers of defence. Like firewalls and antivirus programs, cognitive‐affective gates normally allow the passage of rational decisions but block or counter unsounds ones. Gates can be breached (ie, holes created) at one or more levels of organizations, teams, and individuals, by (1) any element of cognitive‐affective biases plus (conflicts of interest and cognitive biases being the best studied) and (2) other potential error‐provoking factors. Conversely, flawed decisions can be blocked and consequences minimized; for example, by addressing cognitive biases plus and error‐provoking factors, and being constantly mindful. Informed shared decision making is a neglected but critical layer of defence (cognitive‐affective gate). The integrated model can be custom tailored to specific situations, and the underlying principles applied to all methods for improving safety. The model may also provide a framework for developing and evaluating strategies to optimize organizational cultures and decisions.LimitationsThe concept is abstract, the model is virtual, and the best supportive evidence is qualitative and indirect.ConclusionsThe proposed model may help enhance rational decision making across the continuum of care, thereby improving patient safety globally.

show abstract

The Bias in researching cognitive bias

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Equity and Game-Theory Strategies to Promote Gender Diversity and Inclusion in an Academic Health Science Centre

Equity and Game-Theory Strategies to Promote Gender Diversity and Inclusion in an Academic Health Science Centre

Cognitive bias toward the Internet: The causes of adolescents’ Internet addiction under parents’ self-affirmation consciousness

Gating the holes in the Swiss cheese (part I): Expanding professor Reason's model for patient safety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About