Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized, and specific measures that can minimize these biases are concluded.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.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
‘Anyone who commits such a cruel crime, must be criminally irresponsible’: context effects in forensic psychological assessment
TL;DR: In this article, the vulnerability of forensic psychologists to bias has been investigated and it has been argued that forensic psychologists may also be susceptible to bias, and the authors proposed a method to detect bias in expert opinion.
Journal ArticleDOI
Legal psychologists as experts: guidelines for minimizing bias
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors propose guidelines for expert witnesses in the legal psychological domain, designed to make reports as scientifically grounded, applicable, readable, transparent, and bias-free as possible.
Journal ArticleDOI
"Identified", "probable", "possible" or "exclude": The influence of task-irrelevant information on forensic odontology identification opinion.
TL;DR: In this paper , forensic odontologist and dentist participants read task-irrelevant context case information containing either strong or weak identification or non-identification suggestions before evaluating and comparing pairs of true matching and non-matching dental radiographs.
Journal ArticleDOI
The decision-making process in Swedish forensic psychiatric investigations
Olof Svensson,Peter Andiné,Sara Bromander,Karl Ask,Ann-Sophie Lindqvist Bagge,Malin Hildebrand Karlén +5 more
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors explored the decision-making process of forensic psychiatric investigations by using semi-structured interviews with experts and analyzing these interviews thematically, finding that the experts use and shape a substantial amount of information to reach their decisions, and feel that particularly time constraints may reduce the quality of their decisions.
Journal ArticleDOI
Sources of bias in death determination: A research note articulating the need to include systemic sources of biases along with cognitive ones as impacting mortality data
TL;DR: In this paper , a mixed-method, long-term research project at four medico-legal offices in two countries, France and the United States, was conducted to understand the sources of implicit cognitive bias in forensic pathologists and other medicolegal actors.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises:
TL;DR: Confirmation bias, as the term is typically used in the psychological literature, connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a h...
Journal ArticleDOI
The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes
TL;DR: This paper found that social observers tend to perceive a "false consensus" with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses, and a related bias was found to exist in the observers' social inferences.
Journal ArticleDOI
The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits
TL;DR: In this paper, the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit was examined and it was shown that people rely on affect when judging the risk and benefit of specific hazards, such as nuclear power.