Advertisement

Methods for Discovering Cognitive Biases in a Visual Analytics Environment

  • Michael A. BedekEmail author
  • Alexander Nussbaumer
  • Luca Huszar
  • Dietrich Albert
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses three clusters of approaches to measure and detect cognitive biases in the context of a Visual Analytics Environment (VAE). The first approach is called theory-driven since it refers to purely expert-driven methods. One of these methods is based on the definition of design recommendations for interactive data visualizations to reduce the potential effects of cognitive biases. Another expert-driven method is the in-depth analysis of a VAE and the cognitive biases it may induce. The second, empirical approach, encompasses behavioral observations, as well as experimental methods to operationalize cognitive biases. We describe methods to measure the Confirmation Bias and the Clustering Illusion. Finally, the third approach refers to data-driven methods that enable a non-invasive measurement of cognitive biases. This method is based on data-mining techniques to analyze and interpret user interaction patterns in terms of cognitive biases.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to the results reported here has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme through Project VALCRI, European Commission Grant Agreement N\(^{\circ }\) FP7-IP-608142, awarded to B.L. William Wong, Middlesex University London and Partners.

References

  1. 1.
    APA (2009) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edn. American Psychological Association, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barron G, Leider S (2010) The role of experience in the Gambler’s Fallacy. J Behav Decis Making 23(1):117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    BMI (2017) Sicherheit 2016 - Kriminalitaetsentwicklung fuer Oesterreich. Bundesministerium fuer Inneres. http://bundeskriminalamt.at/501/files/BroschuereSicherheit_2016.pdf
  4. 4.
    Cook M, Smallman H (2008) Human factors of the confirmation bias in intelligence analysis: decision support from graphical evidence landscapes. Hum Factors: J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 50(5):745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dearborn DC, Simon HA (1958) Selective perception: a note on the departmental identification of executives. Sociometry 21(2):140–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Everitt BS, Landau S, Leese M, Stahl D (2011) Cluster analysis. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer P, Fischer J, Weisweiler S, Frey D (2010) Selective exposure to information: how different modes of decision making affect subsequent confirmatory information processing. Br J Soc Psychol 49(4):871–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer P, Greitemeyer T, Frey D (2008) Self-regulation and selective exposure: the impact of depleted self-regulation resources on confirmatory information processing. J Pers Soc Psychol 94(3):382–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer P, Schulz-Hardt S, Frey D (2008) Selective exposure and information quantity: how different information decision makers’ preference for consistent and inconsistent information. J Pers Soc Psychol 94(2):231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gigerenzer G (1994) Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology (and vice versa). Wiley, Chichester, pp 129–161Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilovich TD (1991) How we know what isnt so: the fallibility of human reason in everyday life. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hillemann EC, Nussbaumer A, Albert D (2015) The role of cognitive biases in criminal intelligence analysis and approaches for their mitigation. In: Brynielsson J, Yap MH (eds) Proceedings of the European intelligence and security informatics conference (EISIC 2015). IEEE, New York, USA, pp 125–128Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones P, Roelofsma P (2000) The potential for social contextual and group bias in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics 43(8):1129–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mussweiler T (2002) The malleability of anchoring effects. Exp Psychol 49(1):67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2(2):175–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nussbaumer A, Verbert K, Hillemann EC, Bedek MA, Albert D (2016) A framework for cognitive bias detection and feedback in a visual analytics environment. In: Brynielsson J, Johansson F (eds) Proceedings of European intelligence and security informatics conference (EISIC 2016). IEEE, New York, pp 148–151Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manage 42(1):15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steinwart I, Christmann A (2008) Support vector machines. Springer, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77242-4CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wong BLW (2014) How analysts think (?): early observations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE joint intelligence and security informatics conference. IEEE, New York, pp 296–299Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wong BLW, Kodagoda N (2015) How analysts think: inference making strategies. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, pp 269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Bedek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexander Nussbaumer
    • 1
  • Luca Huszar
    • 1
  • Dietrich Albert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Interactive Systems and Data ScienceGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations