Cognitive biases in human perception, judgment, and decision making: Bridging theory and the real world

Scienti c research into human cognition is well established by decades of rigorous behavioral experimentation, studies of the human brain, and computer simulations. All of these converge to provide scienti c insights into perception, judgment, and decision making (Dror & € omas, 2005; Kosslyn & Koenig, 1995). Many of these theoretical insights play an important role in our understanding of how humans behave in the real world. € e scienti c research has important bearings on how human perception, judgment, and decision making can be enhanced, as well as how both lay people and experts can (and do) make mistakes. Bridging scienti c theory to the real world can assist our understanding of human performance and error and help us evaluate the reliability of humans. Furthermore, it has implications on how to minimize such error through proper selection and training, best practices, and utilizing technology (Dror, 2007, in press). In this chapter, scienti c  ndings about human cognition are discussed and linked to practical issues in the real world of investigations. We  rst must understand the theoretical and conceptual framework of perception, judgment, and decision making (Lindsay & Norman, 1977; Marr, 1982; Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986). Information comes to us from the outside world via sensory input (vision, hearing, touch, etc.). As information is received, it is processed; for example, we try to identify and make sense of it, interpret and assign it meaning, compare it to information already stored in memory, and so on. One of the fundamental and established cornerstones of human cognition is that people do not passively receive and encode information.  e mind is not a camera. We actively interact with the incoming information in a variety of ways. What we see not only re! ects the pure and raw data from the input provided by the external world, but it is, to a 5

[1]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  The cognitive neuroscience laboratory: A framework for the science of mind , 2004 .

[2]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Human Information Processing. , 1971 .

[3]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring ☆ , 1983 .

[4]  P. Ditto,et al.  Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions , 1992 .

[5]  Daniel W. McAllister,et al.  The Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies: An Empirical Test. , 1978 .

[6]  Jonathan S. Evans,et al.  Bias in human reasoning , 1990 .

[7]  S. Henze,et al.  Crime Science: New Approaches to Preventing and Detecting Crime , 2006 .

[8]  Refractor Vision , 2000, The Lancet.

[9]  C. Willmore,et al.  The role of forensic science evidence in criminal proceedings , 1992 .

[10]  I. Dror,et al.  When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top‐down processing on matching fingerprints , 2005 .

[11]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

[12]  In C. Emeling,et al.  The cognitive neuroscience laboratory : A framework for the science of mind , 2006 .

[13]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[14]  I. Dror,et al.  Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[15]  R. Lindsay,et al.  HANDBOOK OF EYEWITNESS PSYCHOLOGY , 2006 .

[16]  Applied Lineup Theory , 2006 .

[17]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. , 2004, Psychological review.

[18]  G. Āllport The Nature of Prejudice , 1954 .

[19]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Top-down processes in object identification: evidence from experimental psychology, neuropsychology and functional anatomy. , 1997, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[20]  D. Hamilton A Cognitive -Attributional Analysis of Stereotyping1 , 1979 .

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[22]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[23]  G. Kane Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol 1: Foundations, vol 2: Psychological and Biological Models , 1994 .

[24]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. , 1996 .

[25]  R. Nickerson Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[26]  P. Tetlock Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. , 1983 .

[27]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  Joseph E LeDoux The emotional brain , 1996 .

[29]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[30]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  Perception is far from perfection: The role of the brain and mind in constructing realities , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[31]  M. Potter,et al.  Interference in Visual Recognition , 1964, Science.

[32]  N. Chater,et al.  The probabilistic approach to human reasoning , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  Robert B. Stacey Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case , 2005 .

[34]  D. Risinger,et al.  Three Card Monte, Monty Hall, Modus Operandi and 'Offender Profiling': Some Lessons of Modern Cognitive Science for the Law of Evidence , 2002 .

[35]  A. Schiffenbauer,et al.  Effect of observer's emotional state on judgments of the emotional state of others. , 1974, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Book Review Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. , 1982 .

[37]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Wet Mind: The New Cognitive Neuroscience , 1995 .

[38]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. , 1997, Psychological review.

[39]  T. Pincus,et al.  Pain patients' bias in the interpretation of ambiguous homophones. , 1996, The British journal of medical psychology.

[40]  M. Lepper,et al.  Considering the opposite: a corrective strategy for social judgment. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[41]  S. Schulz-Hardt,et al.  Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[42]  P. Rabbit Human information processing , 1977, Nature.

[43]  P. Tetlock Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. , 1985 .

[44]  P. Pollard,et al.  On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[45]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Handbook of Social Cognition , 1993 .

[46]  N. Tilley,et al.  Crime Science: new approaches to preventing and detecting crime , 2005 .

[47]  Dieter Frey,et al.  The effect of negative feedback about oneself and cost of information on preferences for information about the source of this feedback. , 1981 .

[48]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[49]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Perceived Informativeness of Facts. , 1977 .

[50]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  The Freezing and Unfreezing of Impressional Primacy , 1985 .

[51]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Decision making under time pressure: An independent test of sequential sampling models , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[52]  Itiel E. Dror Land mines and gold mines in cognitive technologies , 2007 .

[53]  Emily Balcetis,et al.  See what you want to see: motivational influences on visual perception. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[54]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Reasons for confidence. , 1980 .

[55]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Meta‐analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts , 2008, Journal of forensic sciences.

[56]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  Perception of Risk and the Decision to Use Force , 2007 .

[57]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[58]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[59]  G. Āllport The Nature of Prejudice , 1954 .

[60]  Lucy Johnston,et al.  Resisting change: Information-seeking and stereotype change. , 1996 .

[61]  J. Bargh Automatic and conscious processing of social information. , 1984 .

[62]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[63]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[64]  P. Niedenthal,et al.  Emotional state and the detection of change in facial expression of emotion , 2000 .

[65]  P. Wason On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task , 1960 .

[66]  Best Practice Recommendations for Eyewitness Evidence Procedures: New Ideas for the Oldest Way to Solve a Case , 2003 .

[67]  Nathalie Guyader,et al.  Interference with Bottom-Up Feature Detection by Higher-Level Object Recognition , 2007, Current Biology.

[68]  R. Zajonc Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

[69]  David Charlton,et al.  Why Experts Make Errors , 2006 .

[70]  K. Pease,et al.  Cognition and detection: reluctant bedfellows? , 2005 .

[71]  Shlomo Zilberstein,et al.  Models of Bounded Rationality , 1995 .

[72]  R. Prislin,et al.  Motivated Cognitive Processing and Attitude Change , 1998 .

[73]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[74]  C. Walker,et al.  Miscarriages of justice : a review of justice in error , 1999 .

[75]  A. Luchins Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. , 1942 .

[76]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  "Fixed Pie" a la Mode: Information Availability, Information Processing, and the Negotiation of Suboptimal Agreements , 1995 .

[77]  P. Granhag,et al.  Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: the need for cognitive closure , 2005 .

[78]  P. Slovic,et al.  Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Communication: The Effects of Using Actual Cases, Providing Instruction, and Employing Probability Versus Frequency Formats , 2000, Law and human behavior.