Objective: This study addresses the human factors challenge of designing and validating decision support to promote less biased intelligence analysis. Background: The confirmation bias can compromise objectivity in ambiguous medical and military decision making through neglect of conflicting evidence and judgments not reflective of the entire evidence spectrum. Previous debiasing approaches have had mixed success and have tended to place additional demands on users' decision making. Method: Two new debiasing interventions that help analysts picture the full spectrum of evidence, the relation of evidence to a hypothesis, and other analysts' evidence assessments were manipulated in a repeated-measures design: (a) an integrated graphical evidence layout, compared with a text baseline; and (b) evidence tagged with other analysts' assessments, compared with participants' own assessments. Twenty-seven naval trainee analysts and reservists assessed, selected, and prioritized evidence in analysis vignettes carefully constructed to have balanced supporting and conflicting evidence sets. Bias was measured for all three evidence analysis steps. Results: A bias to select a skewed distribution of confirming evidence occurred across conditions. However, graphical evidence layout, but not other analysts' assessments, significantly reduced this selection bias, resulting in more balanced evidence selection. Participants systematically prioritized the most supportive evidence as most important. Conclusion: Domain experts exhibited confirmation bias in a realistic intelligence analysis task and apparently conflated evidence supportiveness with importance. Graphical evidence layout promoted more balanced and less biased evidence selection. Application: Results have application to real-world decision making, implications for basic decision theory, and lessons for how shrewd visualization can help reduce bias.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnott, D. (2006). Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: A design science approach. Information Systems Journal, 16, 55-78.
2.
Bacon, F. (1939). Novum organum. In E. A. Burtt (Ed.), The English philosophers from Bacon to Mill (pp. 24-123). New York: Random House. (Original work published 1620)
3.
Cohen, M.S. (1993). The naturalistic basis of decision biases. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 51-99). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4.
Convertino, G., Billman, D., Pirolli, P., Massar, J.P., & Shrager, J. (2008). The CACHE study: Group effects in computer-supported collaborative analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work , 17, 353-393.
5.
Cook, M.B., & Smallman, H.S. (2007). Visual evidence landscapes: Reducing bias in collaborative intelligence analysis. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting (pp. 303-307). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
6.
Croskerry, P. (2003). The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic Medicine, 78, 775-780.
7.
Frey, D., & Rosch, M. (1984). Information seeking after decisions: The roles of novelty of information and decision reversibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 91-98.
8.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65, 959-974.
9.
Goldstein, D.G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109, 75-90.
10.
Heuer, R.J., Jr. (1999). The psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence .
11.
Hutchins, S.G., Pirolli, P.L., & Card, S.K. (2004, June). A new perspective on use of the critical decision method with intelligence analysts. Paper presented at the Ninth International Command and Control Research Symposium (ICCTRS), San Diego, CA.
Klayman, J., & Brown, K. (1993). Debias the environment instead of the judge: An alternative approach to reducing error in diagnostic (and other) judgment . Cognition, 49, 97-122.
14.
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
15.
Larrick, R.P. (2004). Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 316-337). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
16.
McKenzie, C.R.M. (2005). Judgment and decision making. In K. Lamberts & R. L. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp. 321-338). London: Sage.
17.
McKenzie, C.R.M., & Mikkelsen, L.A. (2000). The psychological side of Hempel's paradox of confirmation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 360-366.
18.
Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
19.
Patterson, E.S., Woods, D.D., Tinapple, D., & Roth, E.M. (2001). Using cognitive task analysis (CTA) to seed design concepts for intelligence analysts under data overload. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 439-443). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
Peterson, C.R., & Beach, L.R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 29-46.
21.
Risser, M.R., & Smallman, H.S. (2008, June). Networked collaborative intelligence assessment. Paper presented at the 13th International Command and Control Research Symposium (ICCTRS), Bellevue, WA.
22.
Russo, J.E., Medvec, V.H., & Meloy, M.G. (1996). The distortion of information during decisions . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 102-110.
23.
Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118.
24.
Smallman, H.S. (2008). JIGSAW - Joint Intelligence Graphical Situation Awareness Web for collaborative intelligence analysis. In M. P. Letsky, N. Warner , S. Fiore, & C. A. P. Smith (Eds.), Macrocognition in teams: Theories and methodologies (pp. 321-337). Alder-shot , UK: Ashgate.
25.
Smith, J.F., & Kida, T. (1991). Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 472-489.
26.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: Aheuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
27.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases . Science, 185, 1124-1131.
28.
Tweney, R.D., Doherty, M.E., Worner, W.J., Pliske, D.B., Mynatt, C.R., Gross, K.A., etal. (1980). Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 109-123.
29.
Wason, P.C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140.
30.
Wason, P.C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273-281.
