The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Confirmation bias: why psychiatrists stick to wrong preliminary diagnoses
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic errors can have tremendous consequences because they can result in a fatal chain of wrong decisions. Experts assume that physicians' desire to confirm a preliminary diagnosis while failing to seek contradictory evidence is an important reason for wrong diagnoses. This tendency is called ‘confirmation bias’. Method: To study whether psychiatrists and medical students are prone to confirmation bias and whether confirmation bias leads to poor diagnostic accuracy in psychiatry, we presented an experimental decision task to 75 psychiatrists and 75 medical students. Results: A total of 13% of psychiatrists and 25% of students showed confirmation bias when searching for new information after having made a preliminary diagnosis. Participants conducting a confirmatory information search were significantly less likely to make the correct diagnosis compared to participants searching in a disconfirmatory or balanced way [multiple logistic regression: odds ratio (OR) 7.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.53–21.22, p <0.001; OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.23–8.56, p =0.02]. Psychiatrists conducting a confirmatory search made a wrong diagnosis in 70% of the cases compared to 27% or 47% for a disconfirmatory or balanced information search (students: 63, 26 and 27%). Participants choosing the wrong diagnosis also prescribed different treatment options compared with participants choosing the correct diagnosis. Conclusions: Confirmatory information search harbors the risk of wrong diagnostic decisions. Psychiatrists should be aware of confirmation bias and instructed in techniques to reduce bias.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Such confirmation bias also occurs amongst those who are more knowledgeable about a topic (Mendel et al., 2011).”
From ‘Just like I thought’: Street‐level bureaucrats trust AI recommendations if they confirm their professional judgment (2023) · cites this paper as Mendel et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“Moreover, Mendel et al. (2011) demonstrated that not only laymen are subject to confirmation bias, but this bias also occurs amongst those who are more knowledgeable about a topic.”
From ‘Just like I thought’: Street‐level bureaucrats trust AI recommendations if they confirm their professional judgment (2023) · cites this paper as Mendel et al., 2011
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Importance of Cognitive Errors in Diagnosis and Strategies to Minimize Them
Croskerry, P. (2003) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003 · Cited by 1,675
Weingart, S. N. (2000) · Western Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1136/ewjm.172.6.390 · Cited by 68
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- Kern, 1982, ‘Pseudodiagnosticity’ in an idealized medical problem-solving environment, Journal of Medical Education, 57, 100
- 10.1136/bmj.330.7494.781 · DOI · Paper page
- Klayman, 1995, Varieties of confirmation bias, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 32, 358
- 10.1136/emj.2006.044107 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1985.03350430070028 · doi:10.1001/jama.1985.03350430070028
- 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/jama.2009.249 · DOI · Paper page
- Festinger, 1964, Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance
- Gambrill, 2005, Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Improving the Quality of Judgements and Decisions
- 10.1136/bmj.324.7339.729 · DOI · Paper page
- Ask, 2007, Motivational bias in criminal investigators' judgments of witness reliability, Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 561
- 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x · DOI
- 10.1002/ejsp.264 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-006X.49.3.323 · DOI
- 10.1177/0272989X9301300305 · DOI
- 10.1080/00335557843000007 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-0-387-38319-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/jamia.1999.0060420 · DOI
- Crichton, 2007, Where does it hurt?, New York Times
- 10.1197/aemj.9.11.1184 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1067/mem.2003.22 · DOI · Paper page
- Dawson, 2000, Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications, 211
- Frey, 1981, Informationssuche und Informationsbewertung bei Entscheidungen [Information Seeking and Information Evaluation in Decision Making]
- Frey, 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41
- 10.1067/mem.2003.20 · DOI
- 10.1136/emj.20.5.426 · DOI
- Groopman, 2007, How Doctors Think
- 10.1177/0272989X0202200314 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00059-1 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.557 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1197/j.aem.2005.07.028 · DOI
- Wolf, 1988, Use of the competing-hypotheses heuristic to reduce ‘pseudodiagnosticity’, Journal of Medical Education, 63, 548
- 10.1097/00001888-199810000-00033 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1069 · DOI · Paper page
- Krems, 1994, Are experts immune to cognitive bias? Dependence of ‘confirmation bias’ on specialist knowledge [in German], Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 41, 98
Cited by
Selten, F., Robeer, M., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13602 · Cited by 153
Confirmation bias in medical decision-making
Elston, D. M. (2020) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2019.06.1286 · Cited by 58
Bashkirova, A., & Krpan, D. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100066 · Cited by 55
Rosbach, E., Ammeling, J., Krügel, S., Kießig, A., Fritz, A., Ganz, J., Puget, C., Donovan, T., Klang, A., Köller, M. C., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713319 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Mendel, R., Traut-Mattausch, E., Jonas, E., Leucht, S., Kane, J. M., Maino, K., Kissling, W., & Hamann, J.
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2011-05-20
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2651-2659
- ISSN
- 0033-2917
- 1469-8978
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Confirmation bias: why psychiatrists stick to wrong preliminary diagnoses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0033291711000808
- The paper
- Mendel, R., Traut-Mattausch, E., Jonas, E., Leucht, S., Kane, J. M., Maino, K., Kissling, W., & Hamann, J. (2011). Confirmation bias: why psychiatrists stick to wrong preliminary diagnoses. Psychological Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291711000808
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.