Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias
Open accessAbstract
Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to "bad apples", experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
AI and technology do not necessarily give protection from bias.
“AI and technology do not necessarily give protection from bias (Benjamin, 2019a, 2019b; I. E. Dror, 2020).”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as I. E. Dror, 2020
Cites
Ironic processes of mental control.
Wegner, D. M. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.101.1.34 · Cited by 2,609 · see citing works
Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic.
Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.1.75 · Cited by 1,352 · see citing works
Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review
Saposnik, G., Redelmeier, D., Ruff, C. C., & Tobler, P. N. (2016) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0377-1 · Cited by 1,001 · see citing works
How Do Expectations Shape Perception?
de Lange, F. P., Heilbron, M., & Kok, P. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002 · Cited by 975 · see citing works
Subjective Construal, Social Inference, and Human Misunderstanding
Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60333-0 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Begging the Question: The Nonindependence Error in fMRI Data Analysis
Vul, E., & Kanwisher, N. (2010) · Foundational Issues in Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262014021.003.0007 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Maude, J. (2014) · Diagnosis · doi:10.1515/dx-2013-0009 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence
Morgan, J. (2023) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.15233 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Casu, M., Guarnera, L., Caponnetto, P., & Battiato, S. (2024) · Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation · doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2024.301795 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects
Dror, I. E. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15040490 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citationProsecuting from the bench? Examining sources of <scp>pro‐prosecution</scp> bias in judges
Berryessa, C. M., Dror, I. E., & McCormack, C. J. B. (2023) · Legal and Criminological Psychology · doi:10.1111/lcrp.12226 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Self-citationMind the gap: The challenges of sustainable forensic science service provision
Bouzin, J. T., Lópes, T., Heavey, A. L., Parrish, J., Sauzier, G., & Lewis, S. W. (2023) · Forensic Science International: Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100318 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Thompson, W. C. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2301844120 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Growns, B., & Kukucka, J. (2021) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3800 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
As forensic scientists and as people, we must not confuse objectivity with neutrality
Rodriguez Almada, H., Passalacqua, N. V., Congram, D., & Pilloud, M. (2021) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14785 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach
Taylor, M. K. (2024) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8503 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Structured reasoning failures compromise LLM interpretation of clinical oncology notes
Kenaston, M. W., Ayub, U., Parmar, M., Kumar, P., Anjum, M. U., Naqvi, S. A. A., Chaudhuri, A. A., Zakharia, Y., Heath, E. I., Bekaii-Saab, T. S., et al. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02951-5 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dror, I. E.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dror, Itiel E.
- ORCID
- Dror, Itiel E.
- Venue
- Analytical Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2020-06-08
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 7998-8004
- ISSN
- 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6882
- OpenAlex
- W3033514061
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 68 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 15
- FWCI
- 28.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Analytical Chemistry (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Keywords
- cognitive biases, expert decision-making, human factors, cognitive architecture, blind spots, illusion of control, interpretation of results, bias mitigation
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Decision Making, Humans, Bias
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
