Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 183–187 | Cite as

Systematic errors in medical decision making:

Judgment limitations
  • Neal V. Dawson
  • Hal R. Arkes
Perspectives

Abstract

Much of medical practice involves the exercise of such basic cognitive tasks as estimating probabilities and synthesizing information. Scientists studying cognitive processes have identified impediments to accurate performance on these tasks. Together the impediments foster “cognitive bias.” Five factors that can detract from accurate probability estimation and three that impair accurate information synthesis are discussed. Examples of all eight factors are illustrated by reference to published articles. The authors suggest ways to minimize the negative influences of these factors.

Key words

cognitive bias decision making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Elstein AS. Clinical judgment: psychological research and medical practice. Science 1976;194:696–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974;185:1124–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychol 1973;5:207–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Detmer DE, Fryback DG, Gassner K. Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making. J Med Educ 1978;53:682–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ederer F. Serum cholesterol changes: effects of diet and regression toward the mean. J Chronic Dis 1972;25:277–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM. Confidence in judgment: the persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychol Rev 1978;85:395–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bushyhead JB, Christensen-Szalanski JJ. Feedback and the illusion of validity in a medical clinic. Med Decis Making 1981;1:115–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arkes HR, Wortmann RL, Saville P, Harkness AR. The hindsight bias among physicians weighting the likelihood of diagnoses. J Appl Psychol 1981;66:252–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell DE. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 1982;30:961–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wallsten TS. Physician and medical student bias in evaluating diagnostic information. Med Decis Making 1981;1:145–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. Evaluation of a computerized Bayesian model for diagnosis of renal cyst vs tumor vs normal variant from excretory urogram information. Invest Radiol 1976;11:102–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eddy DM. Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: problems and opportunities. In Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (Eds). Judgment and uncertainty: heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982;249–67Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christensen-Szalanski JJJ, Bushyhead JB. Physicians’ misunderstanding of normal findings. Med Decis Making 1983;3:169–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211:453–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 1982;306:1259–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV, Elstein AS, et al. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1980;178–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. Informal use of decision theory to improve radiological patient management. Radiology 1978;129:385–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koriat A, Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B. Reasons for confidence. J Exp Psychol: Hum Learn Mem 1980;6:107–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Research and Education in Primary Care Internal Medicine 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neal V. Dawson
    • 1
  • Hal R. Arkes
  1. 1.Cleveland

Personalised recommendations