scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

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

Itiel E. Dror
- 08 Jun 2020 - 
- Vol. 92, Iss: 12, pp 7998-8004
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

Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions.

TL;DR: Examination of death certificates issued during a 10-year period in the State of Nevada for children under the age of six and an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists demonstrate how extraneous information can result in cognitive bias in forensic pathology decision-making.
Journal ArticleDOI

Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science.

TL;DR: Four common flaws in error rate studies are presented and a corrected experimental design is provided that quantifies error rates more accurately, undermining the credibility and accuracy of error rates reported in studies.
Journal ArticleDOI

Part 1: The need for peer review in digital forensics

TL;DR: This work forms the first of a two part series discussing why the digital forensics discipline and its organisations should conduct peer review in their laboratories, what it should review as part of this process, and how this should be undertaken.
Journal ArticleDOI

Chemical instrumental analysis versus human evaluation to measure sensory properties of dairy products: What is fit for purpose?

TL;DR: In this review, fundamental considerations for any analyses are first presented as generic context, and Mechanics of sensory measurement are briefly explained with a focus on the key compound classes in dairy.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation observed and lessons learned

TL;DR: The design of interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixture interpretation, the variations observed among laboratory results, and lessons learned are described.
Journal ArticleDOI

Cognitive bias in forensic mental health assessment: Evaluator beliefs about its nature and scope.

TL;DR: Kukucka et al. as mentioned in this paper surveyed 1,099 mental health professionals who conduct forensic evaluations for the courts or other tribunals and compared these results with a companion survey of 403 forensic examiners.
Journal ArticleDOI

Rational bias in forensic science

TL;DR: In this paper, forensic examiners' conclusions are affected not only by objective test results but also by two subjective factors: their prior beliefs about a suspect's likely guilt or innocence and the relative importance they attach to convicting the guilty rather than the innocent.
Journal ArticleDOI

"Cannot Decide": The Fine Line Between Appropriate Inconclusive Determinations Versus Unjustifiably Deciding Not To Decide.

TL;DR: A cognitive model is presented which takes into account that decisions are an outcome of interactions and intersections between the actual data and human cognition and explores the limitations and problems in using categorical decision‐making when the data are actually a continuum.
Related Papers (5)
Trending Questions (1)
What are the Human Factors in Decision Making?

The paper discusses eight sources of bias in decision making, which include factors related to the specific case and analysis, factors related to the specific person doing the analysis, and factors related to cognitive architecture and human nature.