CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 191Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

The Impact of Cognitive Biases on Professionals’ Decision-Making: A Review of Four Occupational Areas

Open access
Berthet, Vincent·2022·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439PMC PMC8763848

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The author reviewed the research on the impact of cognitive biases on professionals’ decision-making in four occupational areas (management, finance, medicine, and law). Two main findings emerged. First, the literature reviewed shows that a dozen of cognitive biases has an impact on professionals’ decisions in these four areas, overconfidence being the most recurrent bias. Second, the level of evidence supporting the claim that cognitive biases impact professional decision-making differs across the areas covered. Research in finance relied primarily upon secondary data while research in medicine and law relied mainly upon primary data from vignette studies (both levels of evidence are found in management). Two research gaps are highlighted. The first one is a potential lack of ecological validity of the findings from vignette studies, which are numerous. The second is the neglect of individual differences in cognitive biases, which might lead to the false idea that all professionals are susceptible to biases, to the same extent. To address that issue, we suggest that reliable, specific measures of cognitive biases need to be improved or developed.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • These biases stem from innate psychological tendencies and can potentially lead to misjudgments and suboptimal outcomes in patient care.

    “These biases stem from innate psychological tendencies and can potentially lead to misjudgments and suboptimal outcomes in patient care [2-4].”

    From Mitigating cognitive biases in clinical decision-making through multi-agent conversations using large language models: simulation study (2024) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Introduction describes cognitive biases as systematic errors that can arise from common mental shortcuts. The Medicine section reports associations with diagnostic inaccuracies and treatment or management errors, supporting the potential for poor patient-care decisions. The paper does not establish that these tendencies are innate. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cognitive bias impacts each and every aspect of the justice and legal systems, from police attending the crime scene through forensic examination to jurors' verdicts and judges' sentencing.

    “It impacts each and every aspect of the justice and legal systems, from the initial engagement of police officers attending the crime scene, through the forensic examination, and all the way to the final outcome of the jurors’ verdict and the judges’ sentencing.”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Berthet, 2022

    The Justice section describes confirmation bias in criminal investigations involving police officers, bias in jurors’ decisions, and anchoring effects in judges’ sentencing. It does not establish that bias affects every aspect of the justice system, and the passages found do not address police attendance at crime scenes or bias during forensic examination. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Bias impacts different elements of the justice and legal systems given the human role and subjectivity in policing, eyewitnesses' accounts, jurors' decision making, and judges' sentencing.

    “Given the human role and subjectivity in policing, eyewitnesses’ accounts, jurors’ decision making, and judges’ sentencing, it is not surprising that bias impacts the different elements of the justice and legal systems”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Berthet, 2022

    The Justice section describes confirmation bias in criminal investigations involving police officers and judges, bias in jurors’ decisions, and anchoring effects in judges’ sentencing. It does not address bias in eyewitnesses’ accounts, so the full list of legal-system elements is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Bias plagues the justice and legal systems from initial police officers arriving at a crime scene, through lawyers and evidence in court, to jurors' decisions and judges' sentencing, and even later at parole boards.

    “Bias plagues the justice and legal systems from the initial police officers arriving at a crime scene, through the lawyers and the evidence presented in court, all the way to the jurors’ decision and the judges’ sentencing, and even later at parole boards”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Berthet, 2022

    The Justice section (page unavailable) discusses confirmation bias in criminal investigations involving police officers and judges, bias in jurors’ decisions, and anchoring in judges’ sentencing. It does not address officers arriving at a crime scene or bias in parole-board decisions, so the claim’s account of bias across the entire process goes beyond the review. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The justice and legal systems are plagued with bias.

    “It is well established that the justice and legal systems are plagued with bias.”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Berthet, 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Baron J. (2008). Thinking and Deciding. 4th Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Bazerman M. H. (1998). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. New York: Wiley.
  3. Bazerman M. H. Moore D. (2008). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. 7th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  4. Bogner M. S. (Ed.) (1994). Human Error in Medicine. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  5. Gigerenzer G. (1991). “ How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and biases,”” in European Review of Social Psychology. Vol. 2 Stroebe W. Hewstone (Eds.) M. (Chichester: Wiley), 83– 115.
  6. Huff A. S. Schwenk C. (1990). “ Bias and sensemaking in good times and bad,” in Mapping Strategic Thought. ed. Huff (Ed.) A. S. (Chichester, England: Wiley), 89– 108.
  7. Johnson G. (1987). Strategic Change and the Management Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  8. March J. G. Simon H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
  9. Pohl R. F. (2017). “ Cognitive illusions,” in Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Thinking, Judgment and Memory (London; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor&Francis Group), 3– 21.
  10. Rachlinski J. J. (2018). “ Judicial decision-making,” in Behavioral Law and Economics. Zamir E. Teichman (Eds.) D. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 525– 565.
  11. Shefrin H. (2000). Beyond Greed and Fear: Understanding Behavioral Finance and the Psychology of Investing. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  12. Stanovich K. E. West R. F. Toplak M. E. (2011). “ Individual differences as essential components of heuristics and biases research,” in The Science of Reason: A Festschrift for Jonathan St B. T. Evans. Manktelow K. Over D. Elqayam (Eds.) S. (New York: Psychology Press), 355– 396.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berthet, V.
Corresponding author
Berthet, Vincent
ORCID
Berthet, Vincent
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-01-04
Volume
12
Pages
802439-802439
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439
PMC
PMC8763848
OpenAlex
W4205738731
Cited by
191
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 1
FWCI
5.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
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, professional decision-making, overconfidence, vignette study, ecological validity, individual differences, bias measurement, level of evidence

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