Cognitive biases as interrupters in evidence based practice decision-making
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.2209Keywords:
Decision Making, Cognitive Bias, Evidence Based Practice, Leadership, Group Processes, Medical Library Association, Health Sciences Librarianship, Health Information Professionals, InformaticistsAbstract
Objectives: To identify the most frequently-observed forms of cognitive bias among Health Information Professionals (HIPs) during decision-making processes. To determine if number of years in the profession influences the types of cognitive biases perceived in others’ decisions.
Method: This cross-sectional study invited participation of 498 elected and appointed leaders at the national, caucus, and chapter levels of the Medical Library Association. The 149 participants (32%) were presented with 24 cognitive biases often associated with expected decision-making contexts among HIPs.
Results: The most frequently observed forms of cognitive bias in decision-making situations were: Status Quo, Sunk Costs, Novelty, Professionology, Authority, Worst-Case Scenario, and Group Think. Four of these overlapped with a previous 2007 study. Results were analyzed by length of years in the profession. Four forms of cognitive bias showed statistically significant differences in frequency by years in the profession: Authority, Naïve Realism, Overconfidence, and Status quo forms of cognitive bias.
Discussion: This study identified commonly observed cognitive biases that interrupt decision-making processes. These results provide a first step toward developing solutions. Mitigation strategies for the seven most common forms of identified cognitive bias are explored with more general recommendations for all forms of cognitive bias. This study should guide the profession on the most commonly-perceived forms of cognitive bias occurring in decision-making environments with an eye upon possible mitigation strategies.
References
Booth A. Barriers and facilitators to evidence-based library and information practice: an international perspective. Perspectives in International Librarianship 2011; 1: 1-15.
Clancy CM, Cronin K. Evidence-based decision making: global evidence, local decisions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(1):151-162. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.151
Eldredge JD. Evidence Based Practice: A Decision-Making Guide for Health Information Professionals. Peer Reviewed, Open Access. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center, 2024. ISBN 979-8-218-34249-4. Available from: <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK603117/>. Doi: 10.25844/0PWE-9H68
Sadik MA. The mystery decisions leaders make: Why do leaders make strange decisions when it comes to people? HR Future. 2023;(10):62-64. Accessed April 19, 2024. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=172538846&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Lee Y. Evolutionary psychology theory: can I ever let go of my past? In: Appel-Meulenbroek R, Danivska V. A Handbook of Theories on Designing Alignment between People and the Office Environment. (Appel-Meulenbroek R, Danivska V, eds.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2021. doi:10.1201/9781003128830
Andrews PW. The psychology of social chess and the evolution of attribution mechanisms: Explaining the fundamental attribution error. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2001;22(1):11-29. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00059-3
Haselton MG, Nettle D, Andrews PW. The Evolution of Cognitive Bias. In: Buss DM, ed. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2005:724-746.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939376.ch25
Over D. Rationality and the normative description distinction. Koehler DJ Ed. Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated; 2007: 1-18. Accessed March 18, 2025. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/PublicFullRecord.aspx?p=7103359
Dang J. Is there an alternative explanation to the evolutionary account for financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive individuals? Behav Brain Sci. 2017;40:e25. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16000467
Lee Y. Behavioral economic theory: masters of deviations, irrationalities, and biases. In: Appel-Meulenbroek R, Danivska V. A Handbook of Theories on Designing Alignment between People and the Office Environment. (Appel-Meulenbroek R, Danivska V, eds.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2021. doi:10.1201/9781003128830
Blankenburg Holm D, Drogendijk R, Haq H ul. An attention-based view on managing information processing channels in organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2020;36(2). doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2020.101106
Leung BTK. Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing. Games and Economic Behavior. 2020;120:345-369. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2020.01.005
Baron J. Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge University Press, 1988: 259-61.
Plous S. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, 1993.
Pronin E, Lin DY, Ross L. The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002;28(3):369-381. doi:10.1177/0146167202286008
Pronin E, Hazel L. Humans’ bias blind spot and its societal significance. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2023;32(5):402-409. doi:10.1177/09637214231178745
Pronin E, Gilovich T, Ross L. Objectivity in the Eye of the Beholder: Divergent Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others. Psychological Review. 2004;111(3):781-799. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.781
Eldredge JD. Cognitive biases as obstacles to effective decision making. Presentation. Fourth International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference (EBLIP4). Durham, NC. 2007.
Helliwell M. Reflections of a Practitioner in an Evidence Based World: 4th International Evidence Based Library & Information Practice Conference. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2(2), 120–122. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8P88R.
Asher M, Hoogland M, Heskett K, Holmes H, Eldredge JD. Making an impact: the new 2024 Medical Library Association Research Agenda, J Med Libr Assoc 2025 Jan; 113(1): 24-30.
Baron J. Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge University Press, 1988: 259-61.
Plous S. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, 1993.
Moore DW. Measuring new types of question effects: additive and subtractive. Public Opinion Quarterly 2002; 66: 80-91.
Carp FM. Position effects on interview responses. Journal of Gerontology 1974; 29 (5): 581-87.
Bostrom N, Ord T. The Reversal Test: Eliminating Status Quo Bias in Applied Ethics*. Ethics. 2006;116(4):656-679. doi:10.1086/505233
Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1988;1(1):7-59. doi:10.1007/BF00055564
Anderson CJ. The Psychology of Doing Nothing: Forms of Decision Avoidance Result from Reason and Emotion. Psychological Bulletin. 2003;129:139-167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139
Hosli MO. Power, Connected Coalitions, and Efficiency: Challenges to the Council of the European Union. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique. 1999;20(4):371-391. 10.1177_019251219902000404.pdf
Geletkanycz MA, Black SS. Bound by the past? Experience-based effects on commitment to the strategic status quo. Journal of Management. 2001; 27(1):3-21. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00084-2
Camilleri AR, Sah S. Amplification of the status quo bias among physicians making medical decisions. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2021;35(6):1374-1386. doi:10.1002/acp.3868
Silver WS, Mitchell TR. The status quo tendency in decision making. Organizational Dynamics. 1990; 18(4):34-46. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(90)90055-T
Oschinsky FM, Stelter A, Niehaves B. Cognitive biases in the digital age - How resolving the status quo bias enables public-sector employees to overcome restraint. Government Information Quarterly. 38(4). doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101611
Ford JD, Ford LW. Stop Blaming Resistance to Change and Start Using It. Organizational Dynamics. 2010;39(1):24-36. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.10.002
Malek N., Acchiardo C.-J. Dismal dating: A student’s guide to romance using the economic way of thinking. Journal of Private Enterprise. 2020;35(3):93-108.
Arkes HR, Blumer C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 35(1):124-140. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
Kovács K. The impact of financial and behavioural sunk costs on consumers’ choices. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2024;41(2):213-225. doi:10.1108/JCM-06-2023-6099
Davis LW, Hausman C. Who Will Pay for Legacy Utility Costs? Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. 2022;9(6):1047-1085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/719793
Jhang J, Lee DC, Park J, Lee J, Kim J. The impact of childhood environments on the sunk-cost fallacy. Psychology & Marketing. 2023;40(3):531-541. doi:10.1002/mar.21750
Rekar P, Pahor M, Perat M. Effect of emotion regulation difficulties on financial decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics. 2023;16(2):80-93. doi:10.1037/npe0000172
Tamada Y, Tsai T-S. Delegating the decision-making authority to terminate a sequential project. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 2014;99:178-194. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.01.007
Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Free Press; 2003.
Catalogue of Bias Collaboration. Persaud N, Heneghan C. Novelty Bias. In: Catalogue Of Bias: https://catalogofbias.org/biases/novelty-bias/. Accessed 7 October 2024.
Liang Z, Mao J, Li G. Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2023;74(1):99-114. doi:10.1002/asi.24725
Langerock H. Professionalism: a study in professional deformation. American Journal of Sociology 1915 Jul; 21 (1): 30-44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2763633
Levin S, Federico CM, Sidanius J, Rabinowitz JL. Social Dominance Orientation and Intergroup Bias: The Legitimation of Favoritism for High-Status Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002;28(2):144-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202282002
Rabow MW, Evans CN, Remen RN. Professional formation and deformation: repression of personal values and qualities in medical education. Fam Med. 2013;45(1):13-18.
du Toit D. A sociological analysis of the extent and influence of professional socialization on the development of a nursing identity among nursing students at two universities in Brisbane, Australia. J Adv Nurs. 1995;21(1):164-171. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21010164.x
Horowitz A. On Looking: A Walker’s Guide to the Art of Observation. First Scribner hardcover edition. Scribner, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc.; 2013. Accessed December 5, 2024. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=5666838
Edwards D. The myth of the neutral reporter. New Statesman 2004 Aug 9: 12-13.
Schudson M. Social Origins of Press Cynicism in Portraying Politics. American Behavioral Scientist. 1999;42(6):998-1008. doi:10.1177/00027649921954714
Bostwick ED, Stocks MH, Wilder WM. Professional Affiliation Bias among CPAs and Attorneys at Publicly Traded US Firms. In: Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research. ; 2019:121-152. doi:10.1108/S1475-148820190000022007
Witkowski SA. An implicit model for the prediction of managerial effectiveness. Polish Psychological Bulletin. Published online 1996.
MacLean CL, Dror IE. Measuring base-rate bias error in workplace safety investigators. Journal of Safety Research. 2023;84:108-116. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2022.10.012
Thomas O, Reimann O. The bias blind spot among HR employees in hiring decisions. German Journal of Human Resource Management. 2023;37(1):5-22. doi:10.1177/23970022221094523
Moskvina NB. The Schoolteacher’s Risk of Personality and Professional Deformation. Russian Education and Society. 2006;48(11):74-88.
Moradi Z, Najlerahim A, Macrae CN, Humphreys GW. Attentional saliency and ingroup biases: From society to the brain. Social Neuroscience. 2020;15(3):324-333. doi:10.1080/17470919.2020.1716070
Wann DL, Grieve FG. Biased Evaluations of In-Group and Out-Group Spectator Behavior at Sporting Events: The Importance of Team Identification and Threats to Social Identity. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2005;145(5):531-545. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.5.531-546
Armenta BM, Scheibe S, Stroebe K, Postmes T, Van Yperen NW. Dynamic, not stable: Daily variations in subjective age bias and age group identification predict daily well-being in older workers. Psychology and Aging. 2018;33(4):559-571. doi:10.1037/pag0000263
Van Bavel JJ, Pereira A. The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2018;22(3):213-224. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
Weimer DL. Institutionalizing Neutrally Competent Policy Analysis: Resources for Promoting Objectivity and Balance in Consolidating Democracies. Policy Studies Journal. 2005;33(2):131-146. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00098.x
Gaertner SL, Dovidio JF, Rust MC, et al. Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;76(3):388-402. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.388
Dovidio JF, Love A, Schellhaas FMH, Hewstone M. Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2017;20(5):606-620. doi:10.1177/1368430217712052
Ensari N, Miller N. The out-group must not be so bad after all: The effects of disclosure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002;83(2):313-329. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.313
Crisp RJ, Hewstone M, Rubin M. Does multiple categorization reduce intergroup bias? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2001;27(1):76-89. doi:10.1177/0146167201271007
Prati F, Crisp RJ, Rubini M. 40 years of multiple social categorization: A tool for social inclusivity. European Review of Social Psychology. 2021;32(1):47-87. doi:10.1080/10463283.2020.1830612
Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H. Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002;53(1):575-604. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
Liebkind K, Haaramo J, Jasinskaja-Lahti I. Effects of contact and personality on intergroup attitudes of different professionals. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2000;10(3):171-181. doi:10.1002/1099-1298(200005/06)10:3<171::AID-CASP557>3.0.CO;2-I
Kahan DM, Landrum A, Carpenter K, Helft L, Jamieson KH. Science curiosity and political information processing. Political Psychology. 2017;38(Suppl 1):179-199. doi:10.1111/pops.12396
Motta M, Chapman D, Haglin K, Kahan D. Reducing the administrative demands of the Science Curiosity Scale: A validation study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2021;33(2):215-234. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edz049
Aghion P, Tirole J. Formal and Real Authority in Organizations. Journal of Political Economy. 1997;105(1):1-29. https://doi.org/10.1086/262063
Ross L, Nisbett RE. The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. Temple University Press; 1991: 52-8.
Milgram S. Obedience to Authority an Experimental View. Harper & Row; 1974.
Hock RR. Forty Studies That Changed Psychology: Explorations into the History Psychological Research. 7th ed. Pearson; 2013: 306-15.
Blass T. The Milgram Paradigm After 35 Years: Some Things We Now Know About Obedience to Authority¹. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1999;29(5):955-978. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x
Albright MK, Woodward W. Fascism: A Warning. First edition. Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers; 2018.
Shi R, Guo C, Gu X. Authority updating: An expert authority evaluation algorithm considering post-evaluation and power indices in social networks. Expert Systems. 2021;38(1). doi:10.1111/exsy.12605
Tarnow E. Towards the Zero Accident Goal: Assisting the First Officer: Monitor and Challenge Captain Errors. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research. 2000;10(1):8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/jaaer.2000.1269
Austin JP, Halvorson SAC. Reducing the Expert Halo Effect on Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees. JAMA. 2019;321(5):453-454. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.20789
Hey JD. The Economics of Optimism and Pessimism: A D. Kyklos. 1984;37(2):181-205. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.1984.tb00748.x (p. 183).
Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin; 2002: 56; 179;
Sullivan MJL. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and Validation. Psychological Assessment. 1995;7(4):524-532. DOI:10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524
Garnefski N, Kraaij V. Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire - development of a short 18-item version (CERQ-short). Personality and Individual Differences. 2006; 41(6):1045-1053. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.010
Zhan L, Lin L, Wang X, Sun X, Huang Z, Zhang L. The moderating role of catastrophizing in day‐to‐day dynamic stress and depressive symptoms. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress. 2024;40(4). doi:10.1002/smi.3404
Kellermann K. The negativity effect and its implications for initial interaction. Communication Monographs. 1984;51(1):37-55. (p. 37). doi:10.1080/03637758409390182
Yang L, Unnava HR. Ambivalence, Selective Exposure, and Negativity Effect. Psychology and Marketing. 2016;33(5):331-343. doi:10.1002/mar.20878
Klein JG. Negativity Effects in Impression Formation: A Test in the Political Arena. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1991;17(4):412-418. doi:10.1177/0146167291174009
Klein JG, Ahluwalia R. Negativity in the Evaluation of Political Candidates. Journal of Marketing. 2005;69(1):131-142. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.1.131.5550
Fracalanza K, Raila H, Rodriguez CI. Could written imaginal exposure be helpful for hoarding disorder? A case series. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. 2021; 29: 1-5. doi:10.1016/j.jocrd.2021.100637
Goodwin P, Gönül S, Önkal D, Kocabıyıkoğlu A, Göğüş CI. Contrast effects in judgmental forecasting when assessing the implications of worst and best case scenarios. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2019;32(5):536-549. doi:10.1002/bdm.2130
Wood S, Kisley MA. The negativity bias is eliminated in older adults: age-related reduction in event-related brain potentials associated with evaluative categorization. Psychology and aging. 2006;21(4):815-820. DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.4.815
Sonoda A. Optimistic bias and pessimistic realism in judgments of contingency with aversive or rewarding outcomes. Psychological reports. 2002;91(2):445-456.
9Singh R, Brinster KN. Fighting Fake News: The Cognitive Factors Impeding Political Information Literacy. In: Libraries and the Global Retreat of Democracy: Confronting Polarization, Misinformation, and Suppression. ; 2021:109-131. doi:10.1108/S0065-283020210000050005
Janis IL. Groupthink and group dynamics: a social psychological analysis of defective policy decisions. Policy Studies Journal. 1973 Sep;2(1):19-25. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1973.tb00117.x
Schafer M, Crichlow S. Antecedents of Groupthink: A Quantitative Study. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1996;40(3):415-435. doi:10.1177/0022002796040003002
Hogg MA, Hains SC. Friendship and group identification: a new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1998;28(3):323-341. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199805/06)28:3<323::AID-EJSP854>3.0.CO;2-Y
Kerr NL, Tindale RS. Group performance and decision making. Annual review of psychology. 2004;55:623-655. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009
Janis IL. Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983: 260-76.
Hodson G, Sorrentino RM. Groupthink and uncertainty orientation: Personality differences in reactivity to the group situation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 1997;1(2):144-155. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.1.2.144
Lee CE, Martin J. Obama warns against White House ‘groupthink.’ Politico December 1,2008. Available from: < <https://www.politico.com/story/2008/12/obama-warns-against-wh-groupthink-016076>. Accessed 8 December 2024.
De Villiers R, Hankin R, Woodside AG. Making decisions well and badly: how stakeholders’ discussions influence executives’ decision confidence and competence. In: Woodside AG. Making Tough Decisions Well and Badly: Framing, Deciding, Implementing, Assessing. Emerald; 2016. Accessed December 6, 2024. http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9781786351197
Korteling JEH, Gerritsma JYJ, Toet A. Retention and Transfer of Cognitive Bias Mitigation Interventions: A Systematic Literature Study. Frontiers in psychology. 2021;12:629354. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629354
Shlonsky A, Featherston R, Galvin KL, et al. Interventions to Mitigate Cognitive Biases in the Decision Making of Eye Care Professionals: A Systematic Review. Optom Vis Sci. 2019;96(11):818-824. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001445
Etzioni A. Humble Decision-Making Theory. Public Management Review. 2014;16(5):611-619. [Page 612]. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.875392
Flannelly LT, Flannelly KJ. Reducing People’s Judgment Bias About Their Level of Knowledge. The Psychological record. 2000;50(3):587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395373
Hoch SJ. Counterfactual reasoning and accuracy in predicting personal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1985;11(4):719-731. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.11.1-4.719
Hirt ER, Markman KD. Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69(6):1069-1086. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.69.6.1069
Isler O, Yilmaz O, Dogruyol B. Activating reflective thinking with decision justification and debiasing training. Judgment and Decision Making. 2020;15(6):926-938. doi:10.1017/S1930297500008147
Cavojová V, Šrol J, Jurkovic M. Why Should We Try to Think Like Scientists? Scientific Reasoning and Susceptibility to Epistemically Suspect Beliefs and Cognitive Biases. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2020;34(1):85-95.
Fong GT. The Effects of Statistical Training on Thinking about Everyday Problems. Cognitive Psychology. 1986;18(3):253-292
Falk E. The science of making better decisions. New York Times. 2025 July 6; Opinion: 10.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jonathan Eldredge, Dr.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
