Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 91

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

Mendel, R., Traut-Mattausch, E., Jonas, E., Leucht, S., Kane, J. M., Maino, K., Kissling, W., Hamann, J.·2011·Psychological Medicine

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291711000808

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Kern, 1982, ‘Pseudodiagnosticity’ in an idealized medical problem-solving environment, Journal of Medical Education, 57, 100
  2. 10.1136/bmj.330.7494.781 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Klayman, 1995, Varieties of confirmation bias, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 32, 358
  4. 10.1136/emj.2006.044107 · DOI
  5. 10.1001/jama.1985.03350430070028 · doi:10.1001/jama.1985.03350430070028
  6. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1001/jama.2009.249 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Festinger, 1964, Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance
  9. Gambrill, 2005, Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Improving the Quality of Judgements and Decisions
  10. 10.1136/bmj.324.7339.729 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Ask, 2007, Motivational bias in criminal investigators' judgments of witness reliability, Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 561
  12. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x · DOI
  13. 10.1002/ejsp.264 · DOI
  14. 10.1037/0022-006X.49.3.323 · DOI
  15. 10.1177/0272989X9301300305 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/00335557843000007 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/978-0-387-38319-4 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1136/jamia.1999.0060420 · DOI
  19. Crichton, 2007, Where does it hurt?, New York Times
  20. 10.1197/aemj.9.11.1184 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1067/mem.2003.22 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Dawson, 2000, Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications, 211
  23. Frey, 1981, Informationssuche und Informationsbewertung bei Entscheidungen [Information Seeking and Information Evaluation in Decision Making]
  24. Frey, 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41
  25. 10.1067/mem.2003.20 · DOI
  26. 10.1136/emj.20.5.426 · DOI
  27. Groopman, 2007, How Doctors Think
  28. 10.1177/0272989X0202200314 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00059-1 · DOI
  30. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.557 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1197/j.aem.2005.07.028 · DOI
  32. Wolf, 1988, Use of the competing-hypotheses heuristic to reduce ‘pseudodiagnosticity’, Journal of Medical Education, 63, 548
  33. 10.1097/00001888-199810000-00033 · DOI
  34. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1069 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 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

Metadata

Authors
Mendel, R., Traut-Mattausch, E., Jonas, E., Leucht, S., Kane, J. M., Maino, K., Kissling, W., & Hamann, J.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
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

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.