Skip to main content
Log in

Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Pediatric Cardiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that humans frequently diverge from rational decision-making processes due to the pervasive influence of cognitive biases. This paper conducts an examination of the impact of cognitive biases on high-stakes decision-making within the context of the joint pediatric cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery conference, offering practical recommendations for mitigating their effects. Recognized biases such as confirmation bias, availability bias, outcome bias, overconfidence bias, sunk cost fallacy, loss aversion, planning fallacy, authority bias, and illusion of agreement are analyzed concerning their specific implications within this conference setting. To counteract these biases and enhance the quality of decision-making, practical strategies are proposed, including the implementation of a no-interruption policy until all data is reviewed, leaders refraining from immediate input, requiring participants to formulate independent judgments prior to sharing recommendations, explicit probability estimations grounded in base rates, seeking external opinions, and promoting an environment that encourages dissenting perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan

  2. Berthet V (2022) The impact of cognitive biases on professionals’ decision-making: a review of four occupational areas. Front Psychol 12:802439

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baron J, Hershey JC (1988) Outcome bias in decision evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brenner LA, Koehler DJ, Liberman V, Tversky A (1996) Overconfidence in probability and frequency judgments: a critical examination. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 65:212–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tykocinski OE, Ortmann A (2011) The lingering effects of our past experiences: the sunk-cost fallacy and the inaction-inertia effect. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 5:653–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Buehler R, Griffin D, Peetz J (2010) The planning fallacy: cognitive, motivational, and social origins. Advances in experimental social psychology. Elsevier, pp 1–62

  8. Mauboussin A, Mauboussin MJ (2018) If you say something is “likely”, how likely do people think it is. Harv Bus Rev 3:2018

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ghanayem NS, Allen KR, Tabbutt S, Atz AM, Clabby ML, Cooper DS, Eghtesady P, Frommelt PC, Gruber PJ, Hill KD (2012) Interstage mortality after the Norwood procedure: results of the multicenter Single Ventricle Reconstruction trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 144:896–906

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Stanovich KE, West RF, Toplak ME (2013) Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 22:259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

The authors do not report any grant support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Dr. Daily developed the original idea for the article. Dr. Daily, Dr. Dalby, and Dr. Greiten all helped draft and critically revise the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua A. Daily.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest/ competing interests to disclose.

Ethical Approval

This is a review article with no human subjects and thus ethical approval was not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Daily, J.A., Dalby, S. & Greiten, L. Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference. Pediatr Cardiol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-024-03462-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-024-03462-4

Keywords

Navigation