Debiasing Strategies Research Articles

DEBIASING STRATEGIES IN SUPPLY MANAGEMENT DECISION‐MAKING

Human judgment and decision making under uncertainty are vulnerable to decision biases leading to deviations from the standard assumptions of the rational paradigm in economics. This fact is currently not widely reflected by research on decision making in sourcing contexts. However, supply managers are aware of the judgment and decision challenges that result from existing and increasing levels of uncertainty in the external, upstream supply chain, and deploy decision supporting strategies for debiasing their judgments. The analysis of supply management decisions using 441 data units from 133 embedded cases from 15 buying organizations revealed high levels of such debiasing strategies. However, the seemingly most effective mitigation strategy recommended in the general debiasing literature ‐ creating awareness of the underlying mechanics causing decision biases ‐ was only employed by one buying organization, indicating a need to further investigate debiasing strategies specifically in supply management contexts.

Effects of problem frame and gender on principals’ decision making

Research indicates people’s decisions can sometimes be influenced by seemingly trivial differences in the framing (i.e., wording) of alternative options. The tendency to prefer risk averse options when framed positively and risky options when framed negatively is known as the framing effect. The current study examined the susceptibility of school principals to the framing effect. Additionally, analytical and intuitive decision styles, the degree to which one’s typical goal is to maximize (rather than satisfice), gender, and years of experience as a principal were measured to assess whether they are predictive of principals’ choices, and to test whether they moderate the effects of framing on choice. Seventy-one principals completed six decision problems (framed either positively or negatively) and instruments assessing decision style, typical decision goal, gender, and experience. Analyses demonstrated that principals are influenced by framing. Although the positively and negatively framed versions of the decision problems were objectively identical, negative framing resulted in more risky choices. Additionally, regardless of frame, men made more risky choices than women. There was no evidence that experience, decision style, or the degree to which one’s typical decision goal was to maximize, decreased framing effects. Several potential debiasing strategies are described, and limitations are noted.

Non-analytical models of clinical reasoning: the role of experience

This paper aims to summarise the evidence supporting the role of experience-based, non-analytic reasoning (NAR) or pattern recognition as a central feature of expert medical diagnosis. The authors examine a series of studies, primarily from their own research programme at McMaster University, that demonstrate that expert and novice diagnostic problem solving is based, to some degree, on similarity to a prior specific exemplar in the memory. The studies reviewed have shown NAR to be a component of diagnostic reasoning at all levels from novice to subspecialist, and in dermatology, electrocardiography and psychiatry. The retrieval process is rapid and is not available to retrospect. It may be based on visual similarity, but can also be present in verbal descriptions. Some evidence exists that the process is unlikely to be available to introspection. Further, early hypotheses based on NAR can result in the re-interpretation of critical clinical findings. Non-analytic reasoning is a central component of diagnostic expertise at all levels. Clinical teaching should recognise the centrality of this process, and aim to both enhance the process through the learning of multiple examples and to supplement the process with analytical de-biasing strategies.

Using Simulation as a Cognitive Debiasing Strategy

Using Simulation as a Cognitive Debiasing Strategy

Reducing the hindsight bias utilizing attorney closing arguments.

In the legal system, jurors are asked to render a decision after the event in question has already occurred and the final outcome, typically negative, is known. This "after-the-fact" structure of the legal system makes jurors susceptible to a human judgment phenomenon known as hindsight bias. This study focused on reducing hindsight bias in a courtroom context by incorporating a debiasing strategy within the defense's closing argument. Subjects viewed one of three videotaped versions of plaintiff and defense closing arguments in a commercial litigation case (i.e., foresight condition, hindsight condition, and hindsight debiasing condition). Results indicate that the hindsight debiasing strategy was effective in reducing subject-juror hindsight bias.

The Effects of Hindsight Bias on Jurors' Evaluations of Auditor Decisions

Hindsight bias refers to the tendency of individuals with outcome knowledge (hindsight) to alter their perception of an event such that, ex-post, one's assumed ability to predict an event is greater than one's ex-ante ability. Auditors must make decisions without knowledge of an eventual outcome, but auditor liability is determined from a perspective that includes outcome knowledge. A behavioral experiment was conducted with 92 prospective jurors. Jurors were presented with a case in which auditors performed an audit of a client company and subsequently issued the standard, favorable audit report. Outcome knowledge was manipulated as: (1) no outcome (control group), (2) negative outcome (bankruptcy and subsequent lawsuit), and (3) negative outcome with a debiasing strategy. Results indicate that outcome knowledge biased jurors' evaluations of the auditor's judgment. Additional analysis revealed that the results are consistent with a cognitive interpretation of hindsight bias. The debiasing strategy was found to be effective in mitigating hindsight bias.