Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jan 4:12:802439.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439. eCollection 2021.

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

Affiliations
Review

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

Vincent Berthet. Front Psychol. .

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.

Keywords: cognitive biases; decision-making; finance; heuristics; law; management; medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart of article search and collection.

References

    1. Baker K. H., Nofsinger J. R. (2002). Psychological biases of investors. Financ. Ser. Rev. 11, 97–116.
    1. Baker H. K., Nofsinger J. R. (Eds.). (2010). Behavioral Finance: Investors, Corporations, and Markets. Vol. 6. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    1. Baker H. K., Ricciardi V. (Eds.). (2014). Investor Behavior: The Psychology of Financial Planning and Investing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
    1. Barber B. M., Odean T. (2000). Trading is hazardous to your wealth: The common stock investment performance of individual investors. J. Financ. 55, 773–806. doi: 10.1111/0022-1082.00226 - DOI
    1. Barber B., Odean T. (2001). Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Q. J. Econ. 116, 261–292. doi: 10.1162/003355301556400 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources