Designing Information for Remediating Cognitive Biases in Decision-Making
Abstract
Software is playing an increasingly important role in supporting human decision-making. Previous HCI research on decision support systems (DSS) has improved the information visualization aspect of DSS information design, but has somewhat overlooked the cognitive aspect of decision-making, namely that human reasoning is heuristic and reflects systematic errors or cognitive biases. We report on an empirical study of two cognitive biases: conservatism and loss aversion. Two remediation techniques recommended by previous research were tested: the expected return method, an actuarial-inspired approach presenting objective metrics; and bootstrapping, a technique successful in improving judgment consistency. The results show that the two biases can occur simultaneously and can have a huge impact on decision-making. The results also show that the two debiasing techniques are only partly effective. These findings suggest a need for more research on debiasing, and indicate some directions for exploring debiasing techniques and building decision support systems.
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?
This bias occurs when people are asked to make decisions under risk and their decisions imply such distortions.
“Research also found that this bias occurs when people are asked to make decisions under risk and that their decisions imply such distortions [125,137].”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [137]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174014 · Cited by 490 · see citing works
“The reason for this stems from an assumption of most work on decision-support systems: that it is relatively straight-forward to measure whether a design intervention would ‘reliably improve human decision-making, particularly in real-world contexts’ [84].”
BackgroundUncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty
Bhatt, U., Antorán, J., Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., Sattigeri, P., Fogliato, R., Melançon, G., Krishnan, R., Stanley, J., Tickoo, O., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462571 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Attraction Effect in Information Visualization
Dimara, E., Bezerianos, A., & Dragicevic, P. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2016.2598594 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Bach, A. K. P., Nørgaard, T. M., Brok, J. C., & van Berkel, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581513 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Bellamy, R. K. E., & Kellogg, W. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Oregon (US)
- IBM (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2015-04-18
- Pages
- 2211-2220
- OpenAlex
- W2081280292
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 22.27
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
- Keywords
- cognitive biases, decision support system, bias mitigation, conservatism bias, loss aversion, heuristic reasoning, bootstrapping, judgment consistency, information design, decision-making
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