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
. 2025 Mar;46(3):536-543.
doi: 10.1007/s00246-024-03462-4. Epub 2024 Mar 24.

Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference

Affiliations
Review

Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference

Joshua A Daily et al. Pediatr Cardiol. 2025 Mar.

Abstract

Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that humans frequently diverge from rational decision-making processes due to the pervasive influence of cognitive biases. This paper conducts an examination of the impact of cognitive biases on high-stakes decision-making within the context of the joint pediatric cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery conference, offering practical recommendations for mitigating their effects. Recognized biases such as confirmation bias, availability bias, outcome bias, overconfidence bias, sunk cost fallacy, loss aversion, planning fallacy, authority bias, and illusion of agreement are analyzed concerning their specific implications within this conference setting. To counteract these biases and enhance the quality of decision-making, practical strategies are proposed, including the implementation of a no-interruption policy until all data is reviewed, leaders refraining from immediate input, requiring participants to formulate independent judgments prior to sharing recommendations, explicit probability estimations grounded in base rates, seeking external opinions, and promoting an environment that encourages dissenting perspectives.

Keywords: Cognitive bias; Decision-making; Judgment; Surgery conference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest/ competing interests to disclose. Ethical Approval: This is a review article with no human subjects and thus ethical approval was not required.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan
    1. Berthet V (2022) The impact of cognitive biases on professionals’ decision-making: a review of four occupational areas. Front Psychol 12:802439 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232 - DOI
    1. Baron J, Hershey JC (1988) Outcome bias in decision evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:569 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brenner LA, Koehler DJ, Liberman V, Tversky A (1996) Overconfidence in probability and frequency judgments: a critical examination. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 65:212–219 - DOI