Debiasing Training Improves Decision Making in the Field

Abstract

The primary objection to debiasing-training interventions is a lack of evidence that they improve decision making in field settings, where reminders of bias are absent. We gave graduate students in three professional programs ( N = 290) a one-shot training intervention that reduces confirmation bias in laboratory experiments. Natural variance in the training schedule assigned participants to receive training before or after solving an unannounced business case modeled on the decision to launch the Space Shuttle Challenger. We used case solutions to surreptitiously measure participants’ susceptibility to confirmation bias. Trained participants were 19% less likely to choose the inferior hypothesis-confirming solution than untrained participants. Analysis of case write-ups suggests that a reduction in confirmatory hypothesis testing accounts for their improved decision making in the case. The results provide promising evidence that debiasing-training effects transfer to field settings and can improve decision making in professional and private life.

Health Opportunity Costs: Assessing the Implications of Uncertainty Using Elicitation Methods with Experts

“…A training session for experts was developed that described the objectives of the elicitation exercise; clarified concepts such as those of uncertainty, variability, and heterogeneity; familiarized experts with the quantities the research sought to elicit; described and explained the impact of bias and heuristics; and trained experts on the methods of elicitation used ( Supplementary Appendix 2 ). 30 – 32 This was delivered by 2 of the authors (K.C. and M.O.S.).…”

Can we reduce facial biases? Persistent effects of facial trustworthiness on sentencing decisions

“…The manipulation successfully influenced lay beliefs, but also the extent to which participants relied on stereotypes when judging different social groups. Regardless, our intervention only had a small effect on beliefs and more intensive debiasing trainings might be necessary to change behavior (for examples, see Devine et al, 2013;Sellier et al, 2019).…”

Open-mindedness as a Corrective Virtue

“…Nevertheless, there is a long history of research into reducing the effects of bias and improving decision making (see Milkman et al, 2009). Specifically, there is experimental evidence that some debiasing strategies can be effective (see for example Sellier et al, 2019; Morewedge et al, 2015). Insofar as they are effective, debiasing strategies can be understood to help us cultivate the epistemic virtues.…”

“… 7 For techniques to reduce confirmation bias see Sellier et al (2019). See also Lilienfeld et al (2009) for a discussion of the benefits of debiasing.…”

“…See also Lilienfeld et al (2009) for a discussion of the benefits of debiasing. Their work collects ‘basic education about specific cognitive biases (e.g., brief and nontechnical tutorials on confirmation bias) also decreases participants' tendency to fall prey to certain errors, including confirmation bias’ (Sellier et al, 2019, 393) (Evans, Newstead, Allen and Pollard, 1994; Kurtz and Garfield, 1978; Mynatt, Doherty and Tweney, 1977; Newstead, Pollard, Evans and Allen, 1992; Tweney et al, 1980). These results do not directly address the philosophical concerns of Kornblith and Ahlstrom-Vij concerning the power of reflection and the likelihood of epistemic self-improvement (they may, in fact, support the argument for epistemic paternalism) but they should increase our confidence in the possibility of creating social and cultural environments that cultivate or diminish the virtue of open-mindedness.…”