Intelligence Analysis Support Guide: Development and Validation

Dhami, Mandeep K.; Careless, Kathryn E.

doi:10.1080/08850607.2021.1966589

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is as yet only a small body of research on analytic thinking, bias and SATs such as ACH. Much of the extant research is based on extremely small samples of analysts and/or non-analysts (e.g., Chin et al, 2009 ; Convertino et al, 2008 ; Dhami & Careless, 2015 ; Kretz & Granderson, 2013 ; Kretz et al, 2012 ; Lehner et al, 2008 ; Patterson et al, 2001 ; Pirolli & Card, 2005 ; Roth et al, 2010; Tolcott et al, 1989 ; Trent et al, 2007 ). However, some recent studies have employed larger samples and yielded insightful observations (Dhami & Careless, 2019 ; Dhami et al, 2019 ; Maegherman et al, 2020 ; Mandel et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Relevant Past Research On Analyst Thinking Bias and Achmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of task structure and confirmation bias in alternative hypotheses evaluation

Dhami,

Belton,

De Werd

et al. 2024

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We empirically examined the effectiveness of how the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) technique structures task information to help reduce confirmation bias (Study 1) and the portrayal of intelligence analysts as suffering from such bias (Study 2). Study 1 (N = 161) showed that individuals presented with hypotheses in rows and evidence items in columns were significantly less likely to demonstrate confirmation bias, whereas those presented with the ACH-style matrix (with hypotheses in columns and evidence items in rows) or a paragraph of text (listing the evidence for each hypothesis) were not less likely to demonstrate bias. The ACH-style matrix also did not confer any benefits regarding increasing sensitivity to evidence credibility. Study 2 showed that the majority of 62 Dutch military analysts did not suffer from confirmation bias and were sensitive to evidence credibility. Finally, neither judgmental coherence nor cognitive reflection differentiated between better or worse performers in the hypotheses evaluation tasks.

show abstract